 |
 |
   California is not just deciding whether pot should be legal. Its determining the shape of a major new American industry.
 Want to really fix the economy? Stop spending $300 billion a year on foreign oil, and invest it instead in ethanol and other homegrown fuels.
 President Obama wants us to support ethanol. How about we do something better for the American farmer?
|
   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 30, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * What a nightmare for the Gulf coastline: "That stretch of coastline is full of marshlands, replete with reeds and piles of dead grass that could soak up oil like a sponge. Unlike fish, the area's famous populations of blue crabs and oysters won't be able to outrun the slick. And, precisely at this time of year, the region is host to vast numbers of migratory birds returning from their wintering grounds in South America. Besides the damage to fish and wildlife, even the land itself could be a victim of the spill. One scientist said if the oil kills marsh grasses, it could eliminate a key natural barrier that keeps Louisiana's precious coastline from eroding." * Greece: "The Greek government, rapidly running out of time to shore up its finances, was close to completing negotiations for assistance from the International Monetary Fund, European officials said on Friday." * It's not just the SEC: "Federal prosecutors have opened an investigation into trading at Goldman Sachs, raising the possibility of criminal charges against the Wall Street giant, according to people familiar with the matter." * Another encouraging shift: "The Pakistani military, long reluctant to heed American urging that it attack Pakistani militant groups in their main base in North Waziristan, is coming around to the idea that it must do so, in its own interests. Western officials have long believed that North Waziristan is the single most important haven for militants with Al Qaeda and the Taliban fighting American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has nurtured militant groups in the area for years in order to exert influence beyond its borders." * Wesam El-Hanafi and Sabirhan Hasanoff, both U.S. citizens living in New York City, have been accused of providing support to al Qaeda in the form of "computer advice and assistance, services and currency." * Anthem Blue Cross customers in California, many of whom were poised to get hit with a massive rate hike, get a temporary reprieve. * The Dems' Wall Street reform package is tougher than Wall Street expected. * The Arizona Department of Education has already begun "telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English." * On a related note, Arizona hates the Affordable Care Act, but wants the money made available through reform. * South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer (R) just doesn't like poor people. * For-profit schools take a hit after criticism from an Obama administration official. * The joke Al Gore was offered, but never told: "It's true I got C's and D's my freshman year at Harvard, but, in my own defense, that was the year I invented the bong." Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
LOWDEN KEEPS BALKING AT CHICKEN CONTROVERSY.... Sue Lowden, the far-right Senate candidate in Nevada, seems to realize that the "bring a chicken to the doctor" matter is not only damaging, it's also not going away. Today, she publishes a piece at Politico in the hopes of putting the feathery mess behind her.
On her own blog, Lowden added:
As walkbacks go, this might seem compelling. But at the risk of being picky, it also seems pretty wrong. Lowden is on firm ground when she notes that her "health reform proposal" doesn't incorporate "bargaining, bartering or negotiating." It's not really a "proposal," per se -- Lowden's "plan" is really just eye-rolling palaver about tort reform and buying insurance across state lines -- but let's put that aside. The problem is she continues to deny what is plainly true: she was presented with policy questions, asked for her thoughts on policy solutions, and twice, in front of cameras, defended bartering as a reasonable approach to health care delivery. This isn't a matter of opinion. Lowden was specifically asked how her approach to health care policy would differ from the new national law. She recommended, among other things, that patients "go ahead and barter with your doctor." Lowden said, at the time, that such an approach "would get prices down in a hurry." When pressed on her bartering ideas a week later, Lowden said, "I'm telling you, this works.... Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system." Now Lowden would have us believe she was just offering "an example of how struggling families are working to pay for medical care"? That's clearly not true. Saying ridiculous things is bad. Lying about saying ridiculous things may prove to be even worse. Postscript: And in case the story wasn't a big enough problem for Lowden, a left-leaning independent group is launching a very effective ad on this. —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
THE SWAT TEAM THAT WASN'T.... The rule rarely fails: if far-right blogs are worked up about a story that seems kind of odd, the story isn't true. Today, the fuss among conservative bloggers is over President Obama's visit to a civic center in Quincy, Illinois, the other day. The event wasn't especially remarkable, but outside the event, there was an assortment of protestors who wanted to express their outrage over ... whatever it is conservatives are upset about this week. To hear far-right blogs tell it, a "SWAT team" was called in to infringe on the rights of these oppressed patriots, because that rascally President Obama is "fundamentally afraid of the American people."
The officers "did not come close to the crowd," but that didn't stop an enraged Tea Party activist from shouting, "This is communism!" And now right-wing blogs are all over it. Back in September, there was a fair amount of talk in professional media circles about the need for major outlets to take seriously the kind of stories bubbling up on far-right website and talk radio. I'd like to think anecdotes like this "SWAT team" nonsense are a reminder that the boy that cries wolf deserves less consideration, not more. —Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
ANOTHER HOUSE REPUBLICAN HEADS FOR THE EXITS.... I know lawmakers from both parties pull this stunt from time to time, but it never seems right when members of Congress announce their retirement the day of the filing deadline.
I can't speak to Brown-Waite's health condition, and I certainly wish her well. But if medical matters really prompted her retirement, why not make an announcement sooner? Instead, she waited until the morning of the filing deadline, with a hand-picked successor, and left Democrats with little opportunity to field a credible challenger. Of course, it probably wouldn't have mattered -- Florida's 5th congressional district was drawn by GOP state lawmakers to be a Republican stronghold, and it is. The NRCC expects to replace Brown-Waite with another conservative lawmaker, which seems like a safe bet. As for the retirement totals, Brown-Waite is the 19th House Republican to retire this cycle (20th if you count Florida's Mario Diaz-Balart, who is retiring from one House seat to run for another), as compared to 16 House Democrats. With the House Republican caucus having 177 members, that means about 11% of House GOP incumbents have decided to give up their seats in a year that's supposed to be a wildly successful one for Republicans. Sure, not all retirements are created equal. There's a qualitative difference between stepping down in a competitive district and giving up one's seat in a "sure thing" for one party. When considering questions like the balance of power, retirements are not quite the indicator some in the media would like to believe. But if you ask anyone at the NRCC or DCCC for an honest opinion, I think they'd agree that when a party is supposed to have the wind at its back, and when that party's leadership is trying to keep retirements to a minimum, having more than 10% of the caucus walk away has to be discouraging. Indeed, in February, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Democratic retirements are a sign that Dems are "running for the hills because they sold out their constituents and don't want to face them at the ballot box." With GOP retirements outnumbering Dems' -- by a margin that's growing -- are we to also assume that Republicans don't want to face voters at the ballot box? —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME THE PRESIDENT.... It was only a matter of time before conservatives thought of a way to blame their political rivals for the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. As Paul Krugman noted, "The only question is what the story will be."
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh settled the debate, telling his followers:
Media Matters has the audio. Conservatives may be predictable, but at least they're consistent. —Steve Benen 1:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
GIMMICKRY ISN'T POLICY-MAKING.... A week ago, Marc Ambinder noted one of the problems with the GOP's far-right base: it "seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking." The observation came to mind this morning when I read that the Tea Party crowd has been crafting a "Contract From America" -- intended to be a right-wing, grassroots version of 1994's "Contract with America" -- that the Republican Party apparently intends to ignore while it works on its own election-year platform. Regardless, what the Tea Partiers have come up with doesn't seem especially compelling.
Maybe it's just me, but policy gimmicks with no substantive foundation always seem rather child-like to me. We're a country of 310 million people with easily the largest economy on the planet. With all of the many breaks, incentives, rates, and penalties, the federal tax code is bound to be complicated. It's unavoidable. Folks can make the case that reforming the code could make it easier to understand. One could also argue that the tax code has loopholes that should be closed. And while I think it's ridiculous, we can even have a debate about the merits of a "single-rate tax system," instead of the progressive rate system. But once we get into maximum word counts, we've quickly entered the realm of hollow gimmickry and arbitrary nonsense. It's a bit like Republicans' obsession over the number of pages in the Affordable Care Act. Who cares? Sometimes complex policies require complex instructions. I'm trying to imagine the executives at Ford telling the engineers, "It's time to design a new Mustang, but you can only use the number of parts found in the Model T. If it was good enough for our forebears..." —Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
FALSE CHOICES, FALSE ANSWERS.... House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked last week about the future of the Republican Party, and whether it rested with the more moderate Scott Brown or the more radical Sarah Palin. Cantor replied:
Yesterday, a reporter noted that some Republicans think Arizona's new immigration law goes too far, while other Republicans endorse it. Asked which group he falls into, Cantor said:
Jonathan Capehart is unimpressed.
Sometimes it's easier to get away with this line than others, but support or opposition on the Arizona measure seems pretty straightforward. This "false choice" crutch sounds like a weak copout because it is. I know many GOP leaders are afraid to comment on the state law, but these dodges have a short shelf-life. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), trailing in the polls, isn't backing away from the Affordable Care Act -- he has three new campaign ads in Nevada touting the law's benefits. * On a related note, two new polls in Nevada show very different results for Reid's re-election prospects. The latest numbers from Research 2000 show him trailing chicken-aficionado Sue Lowden (R) by just four points, 45% to 41%. Reid trails the other GOP contenders by similar margins. Rasmussen, however, shows Lowden beating Reid by 13, 52% to 39%. * Florida Sen. George LeMieux (R) may have received his job from his long-time ally, Gov. Charlie Crist, but the appointed senator will not support his friend's independent Senate campaign. * The latest Research 2000 poll in Arkansas has Sen. Blanche Lincoln's lead over her Democratic primary challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, shrinking. Last month, Lincoln led by 13. Now, the margin is eight, 43% to 35%. * Dems have considered New Hampshire a key Senate pick-up opportunity, but a new WMUR/Granite State Poll shows former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D), 47% to 32%. * In Illinois, Rasmussen has Rep. Mark Kirk (R) building on his earlier leads, and he now has an eight-point edge over Alexi Giannoulias (D), 46% to 38%. * Georgia state Rep. Austin Scott (R) has scrapped his gubernatorial campaign, and will instead challenge Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.). * And in an odd way of playing the expectations game, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested this morning that House Republicans may gain 100 seats in this year's midterms. The GOP needs a net gain of 40 to take the majority. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
YES, THINGS CAN GET NUTTIER IN FLORIDA.... As of yesterday, the Senate race in Florida was strange enough. Gov. Charlie Crist bolted from the Republican primary, setting up a highly-entertaining three-way contest between the sitting governor, a right-wing former state House Speaker, and a relatively unknown Miami-area congressman. But wait, there's more.
Greene will face Rep. Kendrick Meek in a Democratic primary, and will likely "saturate Florida TV with commercials [that] could make him a major contender." In general, the national party would ordinarily be delighted to have a self-financing billionaire jump into a wide-open Senate race. There are, however, a few issues with Greene's colorful background. For one thing, he was a Republican who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in California in the 1980s. For another, Mike Tyson was the best man at Greene's 2008 wedding and Heidi Fleiss lived in his guest house after she was released from prison. Oh, and there's also the small matter of Greene getting rich by "betting on the housing collapse that killed Florida's economy." Nevertheless, Greene appears to be completely serious about the campaign, and has already received advice from Joe Trippi and Doug Schoen. It's Florida, so expect the unexpected. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
ABOUT THAT OFFSHORE DRILLING PLAN.... About a month ago, the Obama administration moved forward with a plan to allow new oil and natural gas drilling along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska. That, of course, was before the unfolding disaster in the Gulf began. Are those plans still on track? Not so much.
I'll go out on a limb and put this in the "no brainer" category. Meanwhile, efforts to address the disaster continue along the Gulf Coast. President Obama dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to the area to help oversee efforts with federal, state, and local officials. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
BOEHNER TAKES CREDIT FOR DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE ADVANCES.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spoke to NPR's Steve Inskeep this morning, and twice said Republicans would repeal the Affordable Care Act if given congressional majorities next year. (thanks to reader A.D.) It led to an interesting exchange:
We've seen a few instances lately in which Republican lawmakers try to take credit for provisions in the Affordable Care Act that they fought like hell to kill. But Boehner is being especially shameless here. He is, after all, the one who characterized the new law as "Armageddon." I guess the new line will need some caveats: "It's Armageddon ... except for those popular parts, which Republicans should get credit for, even though we voted against them." Note to Republicans: if the Affordable Care Act is an evil assault on America, moms, and apple pie, which will end the world as we know it, and which you fight until your last breath to destroy, you don't get to take credit for its provisions, especially when you didn't really come up with them in the first place. Also note that Boehner believes the law sets up "the infrastructure" for a government-takeover of the health care system. What an interesting way to put it. I guess the Democrats' system isn't a government-takeover, but has the capacity to be a government-takeover at some point in the future, maybe. After all this time, can John Boehner speak intelligently about health care policy? Hell no he can't. Update: Ryan Rudominer, the DCCC's national press secretary, responds: "Once again House Republican Leader Boehner displays no respect for the truth as he sits on the sidelines rooting for failure and then tries claims credit for House Democrats accomplishments. Boehner is a shameless political opportunist whose double speak and phony talking points are as real as his fake orange tan." —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
FIRST QUARTER GDP GROWTH: 3.2%.... From Fall 2008 through Summer 2009, the nation's gross domestic product retreated. The four consecutive negative quarters was the longest since the government began keeping track six decades ago. We now have three consecutive quarters of positive growth. It's not nearly strong enough growth to constitute a robust economy, but it's enough to look like an economic recovery.
While the first quarter of 2010 wasn't nearly as strong as the fourth quarter of 2009, this doesn't come as much of a surprise -- the 5.6% growth was fueled by an "inventory bounce" that wouldn't be repeated. Consumer spending helped drive the first quarter numbers, with the biggest increase in three years. And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter since the Great Recession began in late 2007.
ACA GETS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AFTER ALL.... Last fall, particularly in September and October, Democrats worked furiously to get Republican support for their health care reform package. Dems thought they had at least some shot at bipartisanship when even leading House Republicans said they agreed with "80 percent" of the Democratic proposal. The point, of course, was to help with public perceptions -- Americans were far more likely to support the reform effort if they saw members of both parties embracing it. Republicans were well aware of this dynamic, which is why they demanded unanimous opposition, whether it made sense or not. As a result, the Affordable Care Act is considered a partisan endeavor, despite Democratic efforts to incorporate GOP ideas, and despite the fact that the plan is very much in line with what moderate Republicans supported up until fairly recently. GOP intransigence means the Affordable Care Act is a "Democratic plan." But now that it's law, the reform plan is starting to pick up some Republican backers.
Schwarzenegger is the first Republican governor to endorse the ACA, and his support makes it just a little easier for the law's proponents to characterize the effort, particularly in the midterms, as an initiative that "enjoys backing from both parties." And it's not just the California governor. This week, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) spoke at the American Hospital Association's annual meeting and said of the new law, "I like the bill." The comments came on the heels of Frist saying in a separate speech, "From a justice, fairness and equity standpoint, I'm very proud of this administration and that America has addressed this." As long as we're on the subject, let's also note that Mark McClellan, a Bush administration veteran who headed the FDA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, also recently praised the new law. This matters to the extent that the Republican establishment would prefer to characterize health care reform as a stark, partisan conflict -- Democrats approve of the new law, but the rest of the country doesn't. But as support slowly grows, the repeal push loses steam, and high-profile Republicans decide the Affordable Care Act isn't really "Armageddon" after all, the conservative pitch gets more difficult. —Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
THE ROAD AHEAD FOR CHARLIE CRIST.... There wasn't much in the way of suspense at Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's event yesterday afternoon. He'd already made clear that he would abandon his Republican Senate bid and run as an independent -- technically, "no party affiliation" on the ballot -- and Crist did just that, in front of a lackluster crowd where the number of reporters rivaled that of supporters. We talked yesterday about what this says about the Republican Party in 2010, most notably the fact that moderates are no longer welcome in the GOP. But now that Crist's move is official, let's consider another question: can the governor actually win? There are two clear truths that are worth acknowledging at the outset: (1) Crist's odds are better after the announcement than before, since he stood no chance of winning the Republican primary; and (2) that's not saying much, since the uphill climb is still daunting. Less than a fourth of Florida's electorate falls outside one of the two major parties, so Crist has a very small needle to thread. The strategy sounds plausible on paper -- win the independents, pick up moderate Republicans, impress the conservative Dems upstate, eke out a narrow win in a three-way contest with a vote total around 35% -- but executing it is much more difficult. Why? Because Crist will very likely struggle to put together the pieces a candidate needs to win, especially in a huge, expensive state.
This matters. As of today, Crist doesn't even have a campaign staff -- his top aides quit yesterday, as expected -- and the kind of folks the governor might want to hire tend to be loyal to one party or the other. He has a fair amount of money in the bank, but Crist will not only have to give some of it back to angry GOP donors, he'll also find that raising money without party backing is exceedingly difficult. To be sure, Crist is a talented pol with 100% name recognition. But he's also a candidate with no campaign operation six months before voters head to the ballot box, a sinking approval rating, and a record of rhetoric that makes his independent bid look like a shameless act of political opportunism. Can Crist pull this off? It's Florida, so anything's possible. But I'm hard pressed to see how he's elected. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
April 29, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday designated a widening oil slick pill in the Gulf of Mexico as "a spill of national significance" as government officials acknowledged that the amount of oil spewing daily from the well is far more than earlier thought." * Administration steps up: "President Obama increased his administration's role in the cleanup of the vast oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday, by positioning the Department of Defense to assist the giant oil company BP in dealing with the spill and by sending three top officials to Louisiana." * Greece: "European leaders raced on Thursday to complete a financial rescue package for Greece, hoping to head off a chain reaction against other heavily indebted European nations that could turn into a financial meltdown across the continent." * Initial filings for unemployment benefits dropped a bit, but they're still too high. * On top of their other legislative priorities, congressional Dems plan to move on a new campaign-finance measure, intended in part to respond to the Citizens United ruling, before July 4. * Another coal mine tragedy, this time in Kentucky. * More litigation challenging Arizona's immigration law. * As Karzai's legitimacy continues to falter, the Taliban strengthens. * President Obama has made his selections to fill vacancies on the Federal Reserve board. * House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked yesterday whether he supports Arizona's new immigration law. He refused to say, calling the question a "false choice," which doesn't make any sense. No Profile in Courage Award for you, Eric. * Oh, good. Frank Luntz has new suggestions on how Republicans can deceive the public. * If you think Republicans in D.C. have crazy ideas, consider what Republicans in state legislatures are up to. * A certain former half-term governor considers deranged media personality Glenn Beck "an inspiring patriot." The mind reels. * The recession isn't slowing down college enrollment rates. * It's almost as if Karl Rove doesn't remember 2001 through 2008 at all. * Saying goodbye to civil rights icon Dorothy I. Height. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
AMERICAN MAINSTREAM REJECTS ARIZONA MEASURE, DOESN'T IT?.... It's awfully difficult to defend Arizona's draconian immigration measure. Most Republicans won't even try, and some GOP leaders have even condemned it. Today, a Republican congressman from Florida went so far as to compare it to fascism. Democrats have blasted the new law. Churches have condemned it. Editorial boards have slammed it. It's become a frightening example of far-right excess. And yet, there are poll results like these.
I find this very hard to believe, not because Gallup is unreliable, but because I like to think the American character is decent and strong, and would resist efforts like these. Broadly speaking, Gallup asked all respondents for their reactions to the Arizona law. Nationwide, a plurality of 39% support it, 30% opposite it, and 31% had no opinion or had not heard of it. But specifically among those who said they'd heard about the state measure, a majority approve of the law. That includes 50% of self-identified independents, and a whopping 75% of self-identified Republicans. A majority of Democrats (56%) disapprove of the Arizona law. All I can do is hope that most the poll's respondents were confused, didn't understand the question, or lied about understanding what the law actually is. —Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)
SUE LOWDEN, STILL STRUGGLING.... The worst of Republican Senate hopeful Sue Lowden's "bring a chicken to the doctor" fiasco is probably behind her, but when asked to talk about her nationally-mocked understanding of health care policy, Lowden is still struggling. Jed Lewison posted this clip from KTVN-TV in Reno last night, a news segment about the now-infamous "chicken for checkups" mess. The station caught up with Lowden to give her a chance to explain what went wrong. It didn't go well. The clip is worth watching, but of particular interest was when local reporter Brandon Rittiman asked about the widely publicized remarks. Looking clearly uncomfortable, the Republican candidate said, "I, I, I'm not sure, uh, what to say, as far if it's been dragged out of proportion." Asked specifically if she regretted her choice of words, Lowden added, "I, I, I talk about the fact that the Reid campaign is desperate to change the subject from his very unpopular health care bill." I'll take that as a "no"? It's tempting to think that her campaign aides, with instructions from the national party, would be offering Lowden some pretty reasonable tips about how to address this. Maybe laugh it off with some self-deprecating humor? Maybe some policy explanation that demonstrates a familiarity with health care policy? If last night's interview is any indication, Lowden either isn't getting good advice or she isn't listening to good advice. Update: Complicating matters for the far-right candidate, Lowden's GOP primary opponent is seizing on the issue, too. This instantly makes it more difficult for her campaign to blame Harry Reid for the notoriety of the story. —Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
THEY CAN'T EVEN PLAY THE RACE CARD CORRECTLY.... Just a few months ago, RNC Chairman Michael Steele complained, "I'm kind of sick and tired of the left and Democrats in this country, when they get in trouble and don't get their way and their backs are up against the wall on legislation or whatever it is their trying to do, they go to that card, they play that race card." In retrospect, it's almost amusing.
A few angles to consider here. First, the message that the RNC is pushing is just factually wrong. A few weeks ago, several major news outlets published reports indicating that former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears is on the White House's short list for the Supreme Court -- and Sears is African American. It's the one minor detail that makes the entire argument baseless. Second, it's hopelessly insane for the RNC -- an entity led by a man who recently conceded his party has been engaged in a racist "Southern Strategy" for 40 years -- to distribute a piece suggesting President Obama is ignoring the importance of racial diversity. And third, the RNC has spent the past week accusing Democrats of trying to polarize the country "on the lines of race," in part because the DNC intends to mobilize "black, Latino and young voters" during the midterm cycle. As Sam Stein noted, "[T]he RNC appears to be engaging in the type of racially tinged politics they criticized the day before." A senior Democratic operative told Stein, "This is politics 101. If you do the exact thing you feigned indignation over within hours of feigning indignation, it not only proves that the thing you feigned indignation over was not worthy of it, but it also proves you are a political idiot." Sometimes, it really does seem as if the RNC is led by undercover Democrats, anxious to make Republicans look foolish. —Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
GETTING THE BALL ROLLING ON IMMIGRATION REFORM.... Just yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) explained that the Senate would act on a climate/energy bill before it tackles immigration reform. Reid added, however, that he remains committed to passing immigration reform this year. With that in mind, it should be an interesting afternoon. In a few hours, Reid and other leading Dems will unveil the outline of a new comprehensive immigration reform package. The plan was reportedly drafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and presented to reform groups in private meetings on the Hill yesterday. (It's likely Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's input played a role in shaping the proposal, though he now wants nothing to do with the effort.)
Whether this has any chance of passing either chamber is still a matter of speculation, though the odds are probably against it. There's very limited time before this Congress wraps up -- inevitable Republican obstructionism slows the process down -- and the initiative is just now getting started in one chamber. Today's unveiling of a reform blueprint will, however, raise the visibility of the issue considerably. As for the specter of bipartisanship, the issue puts Republicans in a tough spot -- they're generally reluctant, at the national level, to thumb their nose at Latino voters -- but GOP leaders have said they're unwilling to go along with a push this year. Nevertheless, Schumer has reportedly reached out to Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), George LeMieux (Fla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Judd Gregg (N.H.), and Dick Lugar (Ind.), in the hopes of assembling a bipartisan group. Schumer should probably keep expectations low. Today's press conference is scheduled for 5:45 p.m. (ET).
NEW AND IMPROVED?.... House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has a strategy to deal with some of his party's underlying problems -- specifically, that they failed miserably while in power, and have no credibility at all on the issues they claim to care about most. So, what's the plan? Pretend that this Republican Party isn't like that other Republican Party that was humiliated in 2006 and 2008. The reasoning behind the argument certainly makes sense. For voters who remember the last several years, it's awfully difficult to take the GOP seriously. The party that's running on a platform of fiscal responsibility was fiscally irresponsible. The party that's running on a platform of shrinking the size and scope of government grew the size and scope of government. The party that's running on a platform of competence, maturity, and integrity was incompetent, immature, and corrupt. But that's all behind us now, Cantor says. His new message to voters, especially those on the far-right, is, in effect, "No, no, baby, it's different now. I've changed...."
That's not a bad idea, in theory. The problem is the argument doesn't make any sense. Eric Cantor, for example, joined the House Republican leadership in 2002, and proceeded to vote for bigger deficits, more debt, and government expansion without paying for it. He'll be the Majority Leader if the GOP takes the House. John Boehner joined the House Republican leadership in 1994, and was at the heart of his party's spectacular failures in the ensuing years. Boehner was even the Majority Leader when his party lost 21 seats in the 2008 elections. He'll be Speaker if the GOP takes the House. The party won't be "led by a new generation of young and energetic leaders"; it'll be led by the same guys who drove their party and our country into a ditch. Worse, how does Cantor propose "restoring the public's trust"? By embracing the exact same ideas and policy agenda Republicans have run on for years. The reasoning behind Cantor's new pitch isn't bad, but the facts clearly need some work. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
THE ENDURING SADNESS OF 'BOTH SIDES DO IT'.... Ron Fournier, the Washington Bureau Chief for the Associated Press, had a couple of items this morning on Twitter that fit into a larger, depressing pattern. The topic was Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's apparent decision to leave the Republican primary and run for the Senate as an independent. It prompted Fournier to write:
It's a fair question, certainly worth of consideration. But it was soon followed by another question.
On the day yet another very high profile Republican moderate is driven from the party ranks for being insufficienly conservative, the head of the AP's Washington bureau wonders whether "either party" is willing to make room for moderates. Sigh. This gets awfully tiresome. In the House, there are more than 50 "Blue Dogs" in the House Democratic caucus. Is there a comparable group of centrist or left-leaning Republicans in the House GOP caucus? In the Senate, Democratic moderates are more than a little plentiful. Ben Nelson is obviously no liberal, and if Fournier is looking for centrists in the Democratic ranks, I'd also recommend taking a look at Baucus, Landrieu, Bayh, Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Pryor, among others. For goodness sakes, the party elected Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, and he's not even pro-choice. Granted, Senate Republicans have Snowe and Collins, but two isn't an especially big number, and neither of the Maine moderates have been willing to break party ranks on major issues lately. At the same time, in a more general sense, Democrats continue to recruit moderate candidates and reach out to the American mainstream, while Republicans continue to run hard to the right. "Is there room for moderate candidates and moderate voters in either party?" Seriously? —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
BEST CARE ANYWHERE.... Following up on Tuesday's item, the New America Foundation's discussion on Phillip Longman's book, Best Care Anywhere, will get underway at 12:15. The event will be moderated by Paul Glastris, the Washington Monthly's editor in chief, who edited and published the original magazine cover story that became the book. If you're not in D.C. and can't make it, you can watch the live webcast of the event right here. —Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele believes there's "a real possibility" that Gov. Charlie Crist could win Florida's Senate race as an independent. That's probably not the message the RNC intended to push today. * In Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) narrowly leading former Bush Budget Director Rob Portman (R) in this year's Senate race, 40% to 37%. * On a related note, the same poll shows Gov. Ted Strickland (D) leading Fox News personality John Kasich (R) in this year's gubernatorial race, 44% to 38%. * Former Rep. Scott McInnis, the leading Republican in Colorado's gubernatorial race, argued this week that he'd like to see his state duplicate the outrageous new immigration law in Arizona. * Polls in Arizona's Republican Senate primary have been all over the place, but for what it's worth, a Rocky Mountain poll released yesterday shows Sen. John McCain crushing former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, 54% to 28%. Public Policy Polling shows McCain ahead, but by a more modest margin, 46% to 35%. * Speaking of Arizona, while PPP shows state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) leading Gov. Jan Brewer (R), Rasmussen shows the incumbent ahead, 48% to 40%. * Indiana's Republican Senate primary is just a week away, and a new SurveyUSA poll shows corporate lobbyist Dan Coats leading the field. The poll showed Coats ahead with 36%, followed by former Rep. John Hostettler with 24%. * And in Michigan, Rasmussen shows Rep. Peter Hoekstra out in front of the Republican gubernatorial field with 28%. Rick Snyder and state Attorney General Mike Cox are about tied for second. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)
PUTTING CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON THE RADAR.... It's always a challenge introducing a new idea -- no matter how accurate -- into the political bloodstream, but I've been encouraged by the recent talk about conservative judicial activism. University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone recently had a terrific NYT op-ed on the subject of judicial philosophy, which emphasized a key observation:
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Jr. also raised the issue recently.
Two weeks ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) raised related concerns during a "Meet the Press" appearance.
Yesterday, a reporter asked President Obama about the issue. The former professor of constitutional law had some thoughts on the subject.
It's good to see the issue rise in prominence like this. Here's hoping it continues. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
THE RELEVANCE OF RACE.... Part of what makes the Tea Party crowd interesting is the effort to understand what motivates the so-called "movement." The issues activists usually point to as driving their cause don't make sense. It can't be fiscal responsibility, because they said nothing when Bush and the GOP added $5 trillion to the debt. It can't be taxes, since rates are low and Obama just gave them a tax cut. It can't be concerns over the size of government since they applauded the Patriot Act and endorsed the ridiculous new immigration measure in Arizona. So, what makes these activists feel unhinged? It's not unreasonable to wonder if maybe race has something to do with it. Anecdotally, Tea Partiers have repeatedly bolstered these concerns with their rhetoric, placards, emails, and threats. But what about more quantifiable measures? Newsweek has this report.
This comes on the heels of a New York Times/CBS News poll that found Tea Party supporters tend to believe that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people." —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
WHEN CRIST EXITS STAGE LEFT.... Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was effectively given a choice: get humiliated in a Republican Senate primary or run as an independent and improve his odds of having a job in January. Not surprisingly, he's going with the latter.
There are plenty of interesting angles to all of this -- how will Crist fare, will he have any money, why Florida is so odd -- but from a national perspective, the key takeaway continues to be the effort to drive moderates away from the Republican Party. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said yesterday that the Republican Party is "kind of throwing [Crist] out," and making all moderates "feel like they don't have a home" in the party. In this case, the analysis is more than just election-year rhetoric. The "purge" has been underway for a while now, it's making the Republican Party smaller, more rigid, less reasonable, and far less open to diversity of thought. Crist, apparently, no longer feels welcome in the GOP. Neither did Arlen Specter. Dede Scozzafava was forced out. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) career is ending because his conservatism wasn't extreme enough for the party base. It's possible that the electoral consequences of this will be limited. Under normal circumstances, a party that deliberately moves away from the American mainstream scares voters away. Republicans have all but posted a sign on the door at RNC HQ that reads, "He-Men Moderates-Hating Club," which would ordinarily send the electorate running in the opposite direction. But that's what makes this year's landscape so disconcerting -- Republicans are only rolling out the welcome mat for hard-right ideologues, but because voters are frustrated with the recession and congressional dysfunction, the GOP is likely to make gains anyway. That is, unless the economy starts to recover faster, and Democrats are able to demonstrate that a GOP that's even too far to the right for life-long Republicans doesn't deserve mainstream support. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
SLOW GOING ON FAR-RIGHT REPEAL PUSH.... Just a few weeks ago, the conservative push for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act was the only thing Republicans wanted to talk about. It was the center of their election-year focus, and while there was no hope of advancing repeal this year, key GOP officials at least wanted to get Republican lawmakers on board as co-sponsors of a right-wing bill to undo the entire reform package passed in March. How's that going? It appears enthusiasm for the idea is waning.
Now, in fairness, it's not realistic to expect Republicans to keep talking about repealing health care reform, even when other issues are on the front-burner. Just because the GOP's focus is elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean they're abandoning their dream of restoring the dysfunctional mess the Affordable Care Act cleans up. But the relative paucity of co-sponsors does suggest a disconnect between the Republican bark and the Republican bite. It was, after all, just a few months ago when Newt Gingrich boasted on "Meet the Press" that "every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill." The sentiment was echoed on right-wing blogs and talk radio. And now such talk has entirely disappeared, in part because many GOP candidates are well aware of the repeal trap, in part because new, popular benefits of the new law are kicking in, and in part because a genuine repeal push would force Republicans to promise to raise taxes, which they're not prepared to do. Two weeks ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said getting rid of the Affordable Care is Republicans' "No. 1 priority." What are the odds he's still saying that in October? —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENTS -- AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.... Marc Thiessen recently urged Republicans to fight as hard as they can to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The GOP need not fear political repercussions, the Bush speechwriter turned Washington Post columnist said, because Americans won't see the law's benefits kick in for several years. "The charge that Republicans are 'taking away your benefits' will hardly ring true for Americans who don't yet enjoy those benefits," he said. It's worth appreciating, then, that new benefits are already kicking in, in some cases, well ahead of schedule. In recent weeks, we've seen many major insurers begin implementing a provision of the law that allows young adults to stay on their family health care plan through their 26th birthday. What's more, the industry agreed to stop denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions (after initially intending to exploit an alleged loophole in the law). And this week, consumers and families received more good news -- the industry will scrap its "rescission" practices, four months before the new federal ban was scheduled to go into effect.
The heartening announcement on rescissions came on the heels of a Reuters report on WellPoint routinely dropping coverage for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Yesterday, the company said it would end the practice by this weekend. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer described all of this as "a clear sign of momentum for changing the health care status quo." Go ahead, Republicans. Promise to undo all of this progress, turn back the clock, and eliminate these needed, popular advances. I dare you. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
REID STRATEGY VINDICATED BY GOP ACQUIESCENCE.... It's still not altogether clear exactly why Senate Republicans caved yesterday on debating Wall Street reform. Maybe it was the threat of an all-night session; maybe it was the Goldman Sachs hearing on Tuesday; maybe they believed their recent tactics were politically unwise. Whatever the motivation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) strategy looks pretty good this morning. The Nevadan tried a new approach -- he played some hardball -- and got exactly the results he had hoped for.
The GOP is generally fairly adept at the political chess game, but this week proved to be something of a debacle for the minority party. Going into the week, Reid and Senate Dems had two main objectives: (1) advance the Wall Street reform bill to the floor; and (2) make Republicans look like lackeys for wildly unpopular banks and financial industry elites. By last night, when the motion to proceed was approved by unanimous consent, Republicans had effectively helped Democrats with both goals. This is not to say it was a total loss for the GOP. There are reports that the liquidation fund Dems had sought will be scuttled as the bill advances, and Republicans may yet make further changes through amendments on the floor. But the GOP complained bitterly about a variety of other issues, and the NYT noted that "Republicans won no guarantees of concessions on any of these matters." After several tough months, it's led Harry Reid to walk with a bounce in his step for a change. Roll Call noted this morning that the Democratic leader "has been walking around the Senate lately with a broad smile, his shoulders back and a hint of a swagger." The report added that Reid spent a year and a half trying to forge bipartisan deals with Republicans who just want to say no to everything, including their own ideas. He's been forced to adopt a tougher strategy -- on the jobs bill, extension of unemployment benefits, and Wall Street reform -- and it's proving to be effective, at least for now. As for what's next on the financial regulatory reform package, the floor debate is likely to begin as early as today, with a final floor vote expected in mid-May. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
April 28, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * European debt crisis: "European and International Monetary Fund officials on Wednesday were considering a dramatically increased $158 billion bailout package for Greece as the country's debt crisis continued to ripple across Europe, with Standard & Poor's downgrading the credit rating on Spain, the continent's fourth-largest economy." * Don't expect the Fed to touch interest rates for a while. * Left with no other options: "Crews were poised to begin setting fire to oil leaking from the site of an exploded drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday, a last-ditch effort to get rid of it before it reaches environmentally sensitive marshlands on the coast." * Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to move on climate/energy before immigration, but dismisses out of hand GOP calls for him to drop immigration reform altogether. * Good move: "After nine years of regulatory review, the federal government gave the green light Wednesday to the nation's first offshore wind farm, a sprawling project off the coast of Cape Cod." * Hoping to make it clear enough for even the RNC to understand, the House once again unanimously passed a measure to prohibit fake-Census mailings. * President Obama takes his "Main Street Tour" to Missouri. * Wall Street always whines incessantly about new regulations. And it's always wrong. * Prime Minister Gordon Brown's chances of another term just took a sudden turn for the worse. * The striking similarities between law school debt and sub-prime mortgages. * It's crazy on so many levels: "[Former Rep. Tom Tancredo] claimed that Obama is purposefully withholding his birth certificate in order to fuel birther conspiracies that make the right wing look nuts." * The correct response to "show us your papers." Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
PUT AWAY THE COTS.... Three times in three days, Senate Republicans unanimously rejected efforts to debate Wall Street reform. It led Senate Democrats to schedule all all-night session for this evening, and a fourth attempt to pass the motion to proceed. As of this afternoon, those efforts are no longer necessary. With talks of a bipartisan deal having broken down, Republicans have apparently decided to end their obstructionism -- at least for now.
It's worth emphasizing that this is just a breakthrough on the initial step. Republicans haven't agreed to allow an up-or-down vote on the legislation; they're now just willing to let the Senate vote on a measure to let members debate the legislation. In other words, it's just a foot in the door. Republicans will continue to obstruct every step forward, and will no doubt filibuster the bill itself, filibuster attempts to choose members of the conference committee, and then filibuster final passage. This afternoon's news is encouraging, then, but we still have a long ways to go. As for what led to the breakthrough, it gets back to what we talked about this morning -- the GOP blocked a vote on the debate because they saw it as a way of strengthening behind-closed-door negotiations. Now that it's clear that a bipartisan agreement won't be reached, and there's nothing more than can be accomplished through negotiations, Republicans are more inclined to let the bill advance. It seems bizarre, but the breakdown in negotiations means more progress, not less. For what it's worth, talks will continue, even after the motion to proceed passes, and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has assured Republicans that there will ample opportunities to address provisions of the bill on the floor. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
HOUSE REPUBLICAN CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF U.S. CITIZENS.... Just a few weeks ago, the political fight over immigration policy was barely a blip on the national radar. Now we have a House Republican lawmaker, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), calling for the government to deport U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.
Let's be real clear about this. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that those "born ... in the United States" are "citizens of the United States." It also says that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." For that matter, the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that a baby born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants was legally a U.S. citizen, even though federal law at the time denied citizenship to people from China. The court said birth in the United States constituted "a sufficient and complete right to citizenship." What this Republican congressman is saying, then, is that he supports a policy wherein the U.S. government deports U.S. citizens based on their parents' immigration status. Even for the GOP, this is pretty nutty. Indeed, if American officials were planning to deport American citizens, where would the children be expected to go? —Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (61)
BRING IN THE COTS.... I want to debate Wall Street reform all night, and party ev-er-y day.
Is this a press stunt? Well, maybe a little. These all-night sessions are pretty unusual, and the Democratic leadership apparently hopes the extended debate will help further shine a light on Republican obstructionism, and further weaken GOP resolve to keep this farce going. Remember, Dems are confident they're playing the stronger hand here. But it's not entirely about playing for the cameras. As part of the extended debate tonight (and into tomorrow morning), Democrats are also going to seek Senate agreement to end the filibuster and approve the motion to proceed.
If Republicans are close to giving in anyway -- Sen. Voinovich, I'm looking in your direction -- the all-night session might compel them to say, "Fine. Enough is enough." In fact, there were some additional hints earlier that Republicans don't see value in dragging this out much longer.
The earlier they see it in the votes, the earlier these folks can go to bed tonight. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
OKLA. MANDATES INVASIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURES.... It's fairly common for policymakers who want to ban all abortions, but can't get away with that legally, to make it as difficult as possible for women to exercise their reproductive rights. But Oklahoma is taking this approach to truly outrageous levels.
This really is remarkable. For all the overheated talk from the right of late about government interfering with medicine, patients' decisions, and doctors' treatments, conservatives in Oklahoma have now made this the law in their state. The thinking among these conservatives is that the image of a regular ultrasound may not be clear enough. Women seeking to terminate their pregnancy -- still a legal right in this country, by the way -- will, in Oklahoma, be required to get a vaginal probe to get a "clearer" picture. Medical professionals conducting the procedure will, whether they want to or not, be legally required to describe fetus characteristics. "You're going to force someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure," state Sen. Andrew Rice (D) noted. "You have to invasively put an instrument inside the woman. This could be your 15-year-old daughter who was raped." Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (D) agreed and vetoed the bill, saying "it would be unconscionable to subject rape and incest victims to such treatment" because it would victimize a victim a second time. "State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will." This basic concept was rejected by Republican majorities in both chambers of Oklahoma's legislature, which overrode the veto yesterday. Nothing says "limited government" like state-mandated, involuntary, invasive procedures, right? The Center for Reproductive Rights has filed suit, arguing that the new state law violates physicians' freedom of speech and women's right to privacy. Stay tuned. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)
THIRD TIME WASN'T THE CHARM.... There were at least some hopes going into today that the third effort to let the Senate debate Wall Street reform would finally overcome Republican obstructionism. No such luck.
The 56-42 vote was slightly different from the 57-41 vote from the first couple of tries, but it's only because of who was on the floor at the time -- no senators have changed their position, at least not yet. Ezra Klein, meanwhile, notes that the Democratic leadership is considering a new procedural approach this evening.
Now, just as a reminder, the notion of having one senator stand on the floor for hours, reading from phone books, isn't going to happen. But Dems can keep the chamber debating (over debating) all night if it chooses. On a related note, the DNC released a new 30-second ad, intended to run on cable news networks, going after Republican obstructionism on Wall Street reform. The next vote on the motion to proceed is likely to be held tomorrow. Stay tuned. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GOP MINORITY OUTREACH.... In response to Arizona's draconian new immigration measure, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) called for a boycott of his home state. Last night on Fox News, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) was asked if there's anything wrong with Grijalva's position. He replied:
King could have been more direct and just called Grijalva a traitor. And speaking of right-wing Iowans who hate immigrants, Pat Bertroche, a Republican congressional hopeful in Iowa's 3rd district, has his own unique approach to immigration.
I could have sworn far-right Republicans were against involuntary microchip implanation. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Gallup's latest congressional poll finds that Republicans still benefit from an "enthusiasm gap" over Democrats in advance of the midterm elections. * Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is now expected to launch an independent Senate bid. He'll formally announce his plans at an event tomorrow afternoon in St. Petersburg. * Speaking of Florida, Marco Rubio (R) seems to be already shifting to a general-election posture, criticizing Arizona's new immigration law yesterday despite right-wing support for the measure. * Actor Michael J. Fox is the star of Sen. Arlen Specter's (D-Pa.) new campaign ad. "Arlen Specter is moving forward," Fox says. "He's won the battles to double funding for biomedical research, to find cures and to save lives. He's smart, tough and always moving forward." The actor appeared in two Democratic ads in 2006, prompting Rush Limbaugh to mock Fox's Parkinson's. * In Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher pulling away from Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in their Democratic Senate primary. Though the two were running close for many months, Quinnipiac now shows Fisher up by 17, 41% to 24%. * It may not bolster her standing with rank-and-file Democrats, but Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D) re-election bid is getting support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is launching a new campaign ad on her behalf. * Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is not exactly a reliable Democratic ally, but he has agreed to host a fundraiser in support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). * With so much attention on Arizona politics of late, it's worth noting that Gov. Jan Brewer (R) trails state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) in the latest survey from Public Policy Polling, 47% to 44%. * And how far gone are some GOP contingents? Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a far-right Republican in Kansas, is getting a primary challenger. Republican state Sen. Dennis Pyle said Jenkins just isn't far-right enough. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS IN POST/ABC POLL.... The Washington Post's analysis of its new national poll points to widespread public discontent, which is generating a broad anti-incumbent mood. Given that Democrats are the governing party, it's the kind of result Republicans will find heartening.
That's the good news for the GOP. The good news for Dems is that, looking through the internals, there are plenty of encouraging results for the majority, too. For example, President Obama's approval rating is up slightly to 54%, the highest it's been in nearly six months. His approval rating on the economy is also the highest it's been since November, and Obama's support on handling health care is now the highest it's been in nine months. The poll also asked, "Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?" On this question, Dems led by 14 points. In February, Dems led on the same question by just seven points. What's more, the electorate continues to trust the president far more than congressional Republicans on every area of public policy, including an 11-point edge on the economy, and a 10-point edge on health care. The generic ballot question remains close, but the Dems currently enjoy a five-point lead over Republicans, up slightly from March, and far better than the three-point lead Republicans had in February. The anti-incumbency attitudes will no doubt help motivate Republicans with six months until the midterms, but it's hard to interpret these results as a shift away from Dems. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
A TEST OF MORAL SERIOUSNESS.... I rarely myself in agreement with Michael Gerson, but his column on immigration policy today noted a sentiment that I can strongly endorse: "The Arizona law -- like others before it -- does have one virtue. It sorts Republicans according to their political and moral seriousness." It does, indeed. At this point, the serious GOP contingent is quite small, but it's slowly growing. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) criticized Arizona's awful new immigration law yesterday, and was soon followed by former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman. Florida's Marco Rubio also doesn't care for the odious Arizona measure, and even former Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado believes it goes too far. But all of those Republicans have one thing in common: none of them currently hold public office. How about actual GOP officeholders? Amanda Terkel has been keeping track of Republican lawmakers who've stated their public position on Arizona's effort, and so far, only two GOP members -- Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- have been willing to criticize the state law. What about their colleagues? Kasie Hunt reports that Republicans, who usually can't wait to pop off in front of reporters, are suddenly feeling shy.
If the issue is a test of Republicans' political and moral seriousness, it appears most of the party caucus on the Hill is content with an "incomplete." Here's a thought: what about a non-binding resolution expressing a sense of Congress that the Arizona law is a legally-dubious travesty? Why not get every member of both chambers on the record? Republicans tend to love pushing these kinds of resolutions, hoping to put Democrats on the spot. Perhaps Dems might be in the mood to turn the tables. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
MINORITY OUTREACH AND CROCODILE TEARS.... The DNC this week released a new video message to Democrats from President Obama, in effect kicking off the party's 2010 midterm efforts in earnest. In the video, the president emphasizes the importance of recapturing some of the successes of the 2008 cycle. "It will be up to each of you," Obama said, "to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women, who powered our victory in 2008, stand together once again." At first blush, that didn't seem especially controversial. But as it turns out, the comments have become the basis of a new Republican offensive. The Washington Examiner, a conservative outlet, ran a front-page headline that read, "Obama disses white guys." Noting the president's comments, Rush Limbaugh told his audience, "This is the regime at its racist best." The RNC pretended to be outraged, too, characterizing Obama's remarks as making an appeal "based on class warfare and race." DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse told Ben Smith that Republicans are using a bizarre standard.
Seems like a reasonable response to me. Soon after Michael Steele became RNC chairman, he emphasized his intentions about targeting specific demographics and constituencies. From February 2009:
Hmm. When President Obama talks about outreach to younger voters and minority communities, it's offensive. When RNC Chairman Michael Steele talks about the exact same thing, it's "off the hook." I tried to find evidence of conservatives whining last year, concerned that Michael Steele was a "racist" who was "dissing white guys," but I can't find any complaints to that effect. I wonder why that is. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY BITES THE DUST.... The far-right American Spectator claimed to have a juicy scoop on Monday. It reportedthat HHS had evidence that the Affordable Care Act would increase medical costs, but hid the report until last week -- as opposed to before the votes in Congress -- in order to ensure passage of the law. A variety of right-wing blogs were pretty excited about the report, and Republican congressional offices began pushing the story as legitimate. As a rule, when this happens, it's a big hint that a story isn't true. And in this case, the rule proved reliable. The HHS conspiracy fell apart pretty quickly. NBC's Mark Murray did some digging and found that it's "pretty clear that the Spectator report isn't accurate."
What's more, Chief Medicare Actuary Richard Foster weighed in directly, calling the right-wing reporting "completely inaccurate," and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Given that Foster is an independent official with no incentive to lie, his denial is pretty compelling. There are two other angles to keep in mind here. First, while the timeline proves that the Spectator's report is wrong, it's also worth noting that the motivation doesn't even make sense. There was no reason for administration officials to try to hide the information -- lawmakers had already seen, considered, and debated the same data before the vote. Why would anyone bother to hide conclusions from Congress that Congress had already seen? Second, the irony of the right-wing conspiracy theory is that Republicans are accusing Democrats of engaging in a cover-up that Republicans were actually guilty of. It went largely overlooked at the time, but when Bush/Cheney and GOP lawmakers passed Medicare Part D in 2003, the Bush administration had evidence that the bill would cost far more than advertised. Bush administration officials deliberately suppressed the report, hiding evidence from Congress, in a move the Government Accounting Office later described as "illegal." It takes a special kind of chutzpah for Republicans to falsely accuse rivals of launching a cover-up after Republicans themselves launched a cover-up. Nevertheless, given how spectacularly wrong the Spectator and its allied outlets were, HHS would like to see some corrections. We'll see. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
GRAHAM IS LUCY, DEMS ARE CHARLIE BROWN, CLIMATE BILL IS THE BALL.... To a very real extent, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) won a key concession yesterday. He just didn't take the good news well. A few days ago, the conservative senator threatened to kill the climate/energy bill he's been working on for months, because the Senate leadership was weighing whether to do immigration reform first. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he's willing take up climate first, backing down from some of his recent pronouncements. So, Graham won this round, right? He gave the Democratic leadership an ultimatum: climate before immigration, or else. Yesterday, Reid seemed to give in. This should mean Graham and his tri-partisan climate bill can get back on track, shouldn't it? Alas, no. Brian Beutler has this report:
I realize that Graham's recent apoplexy has some credible defenders, and I'll concede that some of his concerns had merit. But I find it very difficult to consider Graham's latest moves evidence of someone who's acting in good faith. Indeed, his latest position hardly makes any sense at all. Graham worked for month on the climate/energy compromise, and now he doesn't even want to allow the Senate to vote on his own bill. Why? Because later this year, Democrats might take up an immigration reform package. That would be the same immigration reform package that Graham claims to support, which he said he wanted to see pass this year, and which he encouraged Democratic leaders to step up their efforts on. And yet, now Graham is prepared to kill both of his own compromise measures, even if they're considered in the order he requested. The South Carolinian said he won't be part of "an energy-climate process that has no hope of success." But the only person who's guaranteeing that Lindsey Graham's bill has no hope of success is Lindsey Graham. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
WILL THE THIRD TIME BE THE CHARM ON WALL STREET REFORM?.... On Democratic Wall Street reform efforts, yesterday afternoon looked an awful lot like Monday afternoon -- Senate Republicans still refuse to allow a floor debate on the bill -- but the pressure continues to get a little more intense.
For their part, Senate Republican leaders began circulating their own version of the legislation, which wasn't too terribly dissimilar to the Democratic proposal, though it would water down key provisions, and tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- a step Dems believe is better suited for a separate bill. GOP senators continued to reserve their strongest opposition to the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- a point of particular interest to the Monthly right now -- and Republican said their version would limit its authority to regulating smaller banks and nonfinancial companies, leaving the industry's heavy hitters alone. Dems will reportedly try, once again, to get 60 votes to allow the Senate to debate the bill today, but there's at least some evidence that Republican unity is starting to crack. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) indicated late yesterday that he's leaning towards switching his vote and allowing the debate to proceed to the Senate floor. And what about the efforts to find a bipartisan agreement? Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who recently said a deal was near, told reporters yesterday that he is "far less optimistic" about reaching a resolution than he was. "I don't think any time in the near future there's going to be a bipartisan agreement," he said. It's counter-intuitive, but the lack of progress on bipartisan talks actually makes legislative progress more likely, not less. Senators like Voinovich, for example, were apparently prepared to allow the filibuster to continue while the behind-the-scenes talks worked towards a deal. Now that a compromise appears increasingly unlikely, some GOP members are more inclined to let the bill advance. The question, then, is how much longer Voinovich and his like-minded allies will wait before giving up on the talks and allowing the floor debate to begin. The third attempt to break the GOP filibuster will be this afternoon. If it fails, expect a fourth try tomorrow. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
BRAINS ON DRUGS..... As Congress hammers out its landmark financial reform bill, one of the most controversial points of debate is the question of where to put the government's new financial watchdog, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Should it be a freestanding agency, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, or rolled into the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve? Liberal Democrats have argued fiercely for making the CFPA independent, on the theory that an autonomous agency will be more powerful and less vulnerable to pressure from the financial sector. Republicans seem to agree with liberal's theory, and fear that a freestanding agency would tend toward overregulation. What is really at issue in this debate, as in so many others, is the question of bureaucratic power. In a probing essay-review in the May/June issue of the Washington Monthly, Steven Teles of John Hopkins University and the New America Foundation uses a new history of the Food and Drug Administration -- an agency which for decades ranked among the most formidable in Washington--as a vehicle for exploring why some agencies are granted far more autonomy and clout than others. Delving into Daniel Carpenter's new book, Reputation and Power, Teles finds the answer boils down largely to a single factor: status. Bureaucracies that are seen and admired as powerful guardians of the public interest are less likely to fall prey to political whims or special interests. Extending these findings to the CFPA debate, Teles argues that, contrary to popular belief, the agency would have more autonomy and regulatory clout if placed inside the Federal Reserve, which is taken seriously by the financial industry and has the reputation and resources to attract top talent. Click here to read a sneak preview of Teles's treatise, "Brains on Drugs." —Steve Benen 6:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)
April 27, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * The Senate tried again to start a debate on Wall Street reform. And once again, Republicans and Ben Nelson refused to let the debate begin. The vote was 57 to 41, just like yesterday. (The negative press apparently didn't faze them.) * Uh oh: "Greece's credit rating was lowered to junk status Tuesday by a leading credit agency, a decision that rocked financial markets and deepened fears that a debt crisis in Europe could spiral out of control." * It led to an unpleasant day on Wall Street. * Krugman evaluates the situation and warns of a "cohesion crisis." He concluded, "It's getting a bit scary out there." * At the same time, however, we learned that U.S. consumer confidence rose in April, reaching its highest level in 19 months. * Interesting day on the Hill: "Blistered by lawmakers for 'unbridled greed,' Goldman Sachs executives on Tuesday unflinchingly defended their conduct and denied the huge Wall Street investment bank helped cause the near-meltdown of the nation's financial system." * The Mexican government has warned its citizens about visiting Arizona. That's probably a good idea. * Good: "The National Institutes of Health will announce Tuesday that four additional lines of human embryonic stem cells are now eligible for federal funding, including the most widely used line." * Keep an eye on this: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) maintained Tuesday he will bring up climate legislation ahead of an immigration bill, noting the former 'is much farther down the road in terms of a product.'" * President Obama's "Main Street Tour" reaches Iowa. * It's like the C. Montgomery Burns Chair in Business Administration. * Great Eugene Robinson column on Arizona, Tea Partiers, and immigration: "Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? ... Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?" * Yeah, I remember when calling the president a "racist" used to be controversial, too. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
SUE LOWDEN BACKS DOWN (SORT OF).... Last week, Republican Senate hopeful Sue Lowden described a "bring a chicken to the doctor" health care compensation model. After defending a bizarre and efficient barter-based dynamic, the Nevadan declared, "I'm not backing down from that system." Today, the far-right Republican decided to back down from that system. Sort of. In the face of some humiliating derision, and a day after receiving the Stephen Colbert treatment, Sue Lowden shifted gears, claiming the quote was taken "way out of context." Her campaign now insists the bartering model was "never a policy proposal."
I'm glad Lowden is trying a new tack here -- after, you know, tripling down on the argument last week -- but there are a few flaws in her walk-back. First, Lowden got in this mess in large part because she did recommend the bartering model as a policy proposal. In fact, in the incident that started this mess, Lowden was asked how her approach to health care policy would differ from the new national law. She recommended, among other things, that patients "go ahead and barter with your doctor." Lowden said, at the time, that such an approach "would get prices down in a hurry." It's a little late for her spokesperson to argue this was "never a policy proposal," when it clearly was. Second, while Lowden can surely find isolated instances of "bartering going on" between medical professionals and patients, that's not really the point. For the overwhelming majority of Americans who struggle with medical bills, bartering isn't a realistic option. For families facing tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt, her wistful praise for a time when patients could "bring a chicken to the doctor" sounds genuinely insane. And third, her remarks weren't exactly a "casual" reflection on the status quo. Lowden specifically called for "changing the system." Before defending bartering and talking about how "sympathetic" doctors are, she said, "I'm telling you that this works." Lowden is doing the right thing by trying damage-control, but her arguments would be more persuasive if they made more sense. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE.... As a rule, congressional Republicans have absolutely no interest in taking up immigration reform this year. That's understandable -- the issue would likely help Democrats, especially Western incumbents like Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Michael Bennet, while splitting Republicans, as it did when George W. Bush tried a few years ago. But the GOP's reluctance is not universal. Dave Weigel notes today that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who still holds considerable influence in GOP circles, has lent his name to "an under-the-radar conservative campaign for federal immigration reform this year."
Will this change the way Republicans approach the issue? We'll see, but it's worth watching the trajectory of the curveball. In the meantime, Dems, when considering the issue on a purely political level, seem to like the implications of tackling the issue.
Part of this is proving to Latino voters that Dems made a good faith effort to get reform done -- and then blaming Republicans if it comes up short. And while this issue barely existed on the national radar a month ago, the ridiculous new law in Arizona has clearly changed the game. —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
DEPT. OF POTS AND KETTLES.... Oh, good, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a new script.
Greg Sargent posted the entire transcript of Boehner's new spiel. I suspect there were some focus groups somewhere who found this pitch persuasive -- otherwise, Boehner wouldn't be saying it -- but it strikes me as pretty weak tea. For one thing, for Republicans to talk about a credibility gap is to lead with their chin. We're talking about a party claims to care about fiscal responsibility, but added $5 trillion to the debt. They claim to be experts on national security, but they bungled two wars and saw 9/11 and other attacks happen on their watch. They claim to know how to use tax policy to grow the economy, but their economic policies produced ruin. They claim to have credible proposals on everything from health care to energy, but their plans quickly fall apart after minimal scrutiny. They claim to hate last year's recovery package, but keep taking credit for stimulus projects they don't believe should even exist. They claim to support reforms of how Wall Street operates, but they won't even allow for a debate on the Senate floor, and seem to be trading obstructionism for campaign cash. If Republicans really want Americans to consider which party is lacking in credibility, no serious analysis would work in the GOP's favor. For another, while Democrats are hardly above reproach, questioning their trustworthiness seems like an odd area for criticism. For better or worse, Dems have governed as they said they'd govern. They've fought for the ideas and proposals they said they'd fight for. And despite inheriting multiple disasters from a failed Republican administration, things have gone pretty well. After 15 months as the governing party, Democrats have rescued the economy from a burgeoning catastrophe, prevented terrorist attacks, captured or killed a variety of terrorist leaders, withdrawn troops from Iraq, passed a breakthrough health-care reform plan, overhauled the student-loan system, struck a key nuclear deal with Russia, got the faltering U.S. auto industry back on track, got banks to pay us back for the TARP bailout, lifted the ban on stem-cell research, passed a national service bill, passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed new regulations of the credit card industry, passed new regulation of the tobacco industry, helped restore the nation's stature and leadership role on the global stage, and are poised to finally bring some safeguards and accountability to Wall Street. Why is it, exactly, that Boehner thinks Democrats have a "credibility" problem, as opposed to, say, his own party? —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Most of the time, if I refer readers to a clip from a congressional hearing, it's not necessary to include a "not safe for work" reference. But there are notable exceptions. Take today, for example, when Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) grilled former Goldman Sachs partner Daniel Sparks, who led the firm's mortgages department, at a hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Reading from an internal firm email, Levin confronted Sparks: "'Boy, that Timberwolf was one shitty deal.' How much of that shitty deal did you sell to your clients after June 22, 2007?" Sparks said he didn't know, but the price would have reflected any concerns about value. Levin wasn't persuaded: "But you didn't tell them you thought it was a shitty deal." Sparks noted that those words weren't from an email he wrote, to which Levin responded, "No. Who did? Your people. Internally. You knew it was a shitty deal and that's what your email shows." It actually got worse from there. Levin pointed to a long list of examples of Goldman making sales of this "shitty deal" a "top priority" after it already been assessed as garbage. "Should Goldman Sachs be trying to sell a shitty deal?" the Democratic senator asked. "Can you answer that one yes or no?" Sparks, not surprisingly, hedged. The rest of the hearing hasn't gone much better. —Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
RNC'S FAKE-CENSUS APPEALS DRAW FIRE.... Without a single vote of opposition in either chamber, Congress recently passed a law to restrict fake-census materials as part of sleazy fundraising campaigns. It was a rather direct rebuke to the Republican National Committee -- it was, after all, the only entity trying to pull this stunt. And yet, the RNC continues to send out the misleading mailings, with envelopes that include text such as "Census Document" and, in all caps, "DO NOT DESTROY/OFFICIAL DOCUMENT." Asked for an explanation, RNC officials insist the law doesn't apply to their underhanded fundraising techniques. Asked why not, RNC officials have very little too offer. Yesterday, Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and William Clay (D-Mo.), both senior members of the House Oversight committee, urged the U.S. Postmaster General to intervene. Oddly enough, Dems aren't the only ones concerned. In a rare display of bipartisanship, some House Republicans aren't happy, either.
Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) are reportedly drafting a letter to the RNC, demanding they stop their fake-census mailings. I realize that, on occasion, the RNC will do something outrageous in the hopes that its misconduct will generate its own attention. For example, it might create a loathsome web ad, which it has no intention of airing on television, simply in the hopes that the networks will air for free as part of the coverage of the story. But if there's an upside to the fake-census story, I don't see it. The RNC just looks sleazy, reckless, and possibly even criminal, with no apparent upside. When far-right House Republicans are raising a fuss, you know the RNC has crossed a line. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will announce his plans for the rest of the year on Thursday, the day before the filing deadline for an expected independent Senate bid. * Asked yesterday whether Crist would caucus with Democrats or Republicans should he win as an independent, the governor said, "You're way ahead of me." * Sen. Bob Bennett (R) is now running third in Utah, reinforcing the fact that his career is nearly over -- there's just no room for a conservative senator in a very conservative party. * Last week, Ohio Republicans sent out a mailer saying they're trying to take Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) "out of the House and send her back to the kitchen." Sutton is fighting back, calling on her Republican opponent to denounce the misogynistic attack. * The Democratic primary in North Carolina's Senate race is just a week away, and at this point, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall has a slight edge over former state Sen. Cal Cunningham in the multi-candidate race. If no candidate gets * In Kentucky, Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo (D), a leading Senate candidate, emphasizes his opposition to cap-and-trade -- the basis for his party's energy policy -- in a new campaign ad. * Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will not run unopposed after all -- Fox News commentator Jay Townsend will kick off his Republican campaign this weekend. * And in Georgia, real estate magnate Ray Boyd had planned on running for governor as a Republican, but will now reportedly run as an independent. Boyd has said he intends to spend $2 million of his own money on the race. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
BEST CARE ANYWHERE.... Since its original publication three years ago, Phillip Longman's Best Care Anywhere has become a classic among health care delivery system reformers. Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has applauded its central insight: that a universal, integrated system such as the VA is best equipped to maximize health care quality while lowering costs thanks to its long-term relationship with its patients. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post has called Best Care Anywhere, "Among the most important social policy books published in the last decade." Through word of mouth and expert endorsement, it has become one of the nation's best-selling books on fixing the health care delivery system as well as assigned reading for students of health care policy. Now, by popular demand, Longman has produced a new, expanded second edition that relates the book's paradoxical message to the new and urgent challenges created by passage of comprehensive health insurance reform. The book chronicles the transformation of the VA health system from one of the worst health care providers in United States into one that outperforms nearly all others on metrics ranging from patient safety to the use of electronic medical records, adoption of evidence medicine, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Longman uses this story, along with that of his first wife's death to breast cancer at a prestigious cancer treatment center, to draw out lessons about how much of what we think we know about the working of the health care delivery system is simply wrong. On Thursday, the New America Foundation will host a discussion on Longman's book at its D.C. office at 12:15 p.m. The event will be moderated by Paul Glastris, the Washington Monthly's editor in chief, who edited and published the original magazine cover story that became the book. Longman also wrote a follow-up piece, "Best Care Everywhere," in the October 2007 issue. If you wish to attend in person, you can register here. If you want to watch the event online, a live webcast is available at the same link. (You need not register to watch the webcast.) —Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
SCARBOROUGH TELLS IT LIKE IT IS.... Credit where credit is due: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough criticized Arizona's new immigration law this morning, and did so in a compelling, persuasive way. As the former Republican congressman put it, "...It does offend me when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one out of three citizens, who, if they're walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they're walking their child to school, and they're an American citizen, or a legal, legal immigrant -- to now put a target on their back, and make them think that every time they walk out of their door they may have to prove something. I will tell you, that is un-American. It is unacceptable and it is un-American." I'm not sure if I've ever agreed so strongly with Joe Scarborough. Atrios added, "I'm not usually one to highlight right wingers saying reasonable things, but I think on this issue it's a positive sign that even Joe Scarborough isn't on board with the Arizona horror show." Of course, Scarborough is no longer in Congress, and need not worry about offending the Republican Party's far-right base or donors. What I'd really like to see is some current GOP officials speak out this forcefully on the issue. Thus far, according to research from ThinkProgress, only one sitting Republican member of Congress -- Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-American lawmaker in Miami -- has been willing to speak out strongly against the Arizona measure. Here's hoping he's not the only one.
A GOP STRATEGY THAT PAYS DIVIDENDS.... A couple of weeks ago, members of the Senate Republican leadership traveled to New York for a private, behind-closed-doors chat with hedge fund managers, bankers, and Wall Street elites. By all appearances, the message wasn't especially subtle: the GOP would fight against new safeguards, and Wall Street should reward Republicans with campaign contributions.
Last year, J.P. Morgan's PAC gave most of its donations to Dems. This year, most of its donations are going to Republicans. Last year, Morgan Stanley gave most of its donations to Dems. This year, 80% of its donations are going to Republicans. Goldman Sachs has been a reliable Democratic supporter, until this year, with most of its PAC money going to the GOP. Yesterday, after Republicans blocked a debate on Wall Street reform, the RNC issued a press release that said Democrats "stand with" Wall Street, adding that Senate Dems failed "in their attempt to move forward with bailout for their Wall Street fat cat friends." Given reality, it's hard to overstate how blisteringly stupid this is. The RNC must seriously believe we're all idiots. —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
THE LIMITED PRACTICAL BENEFITS OF XENOPHOBIA.... Twelve years ago, Alabama voters grew so weary of then-Gov. Fob James' (R) nonsense -- he seemed far more interested in promoting the Ten Commandments than governing -- that they gave him the boot after one term. This year, his son Tim is running for the same job, and he appears to be a chip off the old block. In his first TV ad, the younger James asks, "Why do our politicians make us give driver license exams in 12 languages? This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it. We're only giving that test in English -- if I'm governor. Maybe it's the business man in me, but we'll save money. And it make sense. [lengthy pause] Does it to you?" That was probably a rhetorical question, but actually, no, it doesn't. Tim James may or may not have thought to look into this before using it as the basis for a television ad, but Alabama administers the test in multiple languages in order to qualify for federal transportation funding. If a James administration insisted on dropping the current standards, it wouldn't "save money" for Alabama; it would do the exact opposite. For that matter, courts have, more than once, rejected efforts to mandate English-only exams. What's more, as a substantive matter, the reason officials want the exam to be available in multiple languages in the first place is because they want drivers to get drivers licenses and demonstrate proficiency when it comes to operating a vehicle and understanding the rules. But these details aren't really what matter to Alabama Republicans. As Tim Fernholz explained, "Maintaining federal funding, keeping the roads safe, or even simple nondiscrimination don't seem to matter to James. He'd rather exploit racial tension and hostility toward the national government to get ahead." —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
GREENHOUSE GETS SHRILL.... Linda Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times, isn't known for writing provocative opinion pieces. But the new, odious immigration measure in Arizona appears to have genuinely outraged Greenhouse. Good for her.
Greenhouse's question about Goldwater's reaction to such madness also reminds me that there's another group of small-government-minded folks who claim to be concerned by authoritarian tactics. Reader B.H. emailed this poignant observation last night:
Nor have I. It's almost as if the right-wing crowd is only offended by government abuses when they're imaginary. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
HOW BEN NELSON ROLLS.... Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, yesterday, on a motion to proceed:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, in November, on a motion to proceed:
I don't know, Ben, why would a member stop senators from doing the job they're elected to do? Nelson said in a statement that he "cannot support proceeding on a bill I haven't seen." But that's silly -- Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) published a draft more than a month ago, and released the official legislative language 10 days ago. Of course, it's not exactly a mystery as to why Ben Nelson sided with Republicans to prevent a debate on Wall Street reform. The Democratic bill includes tough new restrictions on derivatives, and Warren Buffet, a billionaire Nebraskan, has tens of billions of dollars in derivatives contracts. Buffet, not surprisingly, has been urging Nelson to help protect his business, and the senator seems inclined to do what his wealthiest constituent wants. Over the weekend, Nelson sought a special side deal (yes, again) that would have created an exemption, shielding existing derivatives from new regulations, and in the process relieving Buffet of any new burdens. Dodd thought this was absurd, rejected Nelson's plea, and apparently pushed Nelson into blocking a debate. Note the shift in Democratic strategy, as compared to last fall: Dems are so confident Republicans will eventually come around on Wall Street reform, they don't feel the need to give in to Ben Nelson's ridiculous demands. With health care, Dems had no other options. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
GOP TO DEMS: NO VOTE FOR YOU.... As expected, the Senate leadership tried to bring a Wall Street reform package to the floor for a debate late yesterday. And as expected, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to prevent that debate from getting underway. The final vote was 57 to 41, with two GOP senators not voting. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined with Republicans (more on that later) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote for purely procedural reasons -- by voting against it, he'll be able to bring back to the floor again. President Obama issued a fairly aggressive statement after the vote.
So, now what? Roll Call reports that the Dems' strategy hasn't changed.
For now, then, the Wall Street reform bill will stay right where it is, waiting for a vote on the motion to proceed. There are some other things Senate Dems would like to try to do this week, but depending on the status of the bipartisan talks, it's likely the Senate will just be in limbo for a while. The hope among Democrats is that the longer the spotlight is on this reform bill, the pressure Republicans will feel. The next attempt at passing the motion to proceed may come as early as today.
April 26, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * As promised, Senate Republicans blocked a vote to start debate on Wall Street reform this afternoon. In a rather ridiculous move, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined with the GOP, proving once again just how embarrassing he can be. * Iraq: "Seven weeks after Iraqis went to the polls, a special elections court disqualified a winning parliamentary candidate, likely reversing the narrow defeat of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's coalition and possibly allowing him the first chance to form a new coalition government." * Political chaos continues to threaten Thailand. * President Obama eulogizes 29 coal miners killed in West Virginia earlier this month. "Our task, here on Earth, is to save lives from being lost in another such tragedy," the president said. * Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) still thinks the climate/energy bill is headed for the Senate floor -- eventually. * Encouraging: "The recovery is shaping up to be stronger than expected and there is little risk the economy will slip back into a recession, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 46 leading economists." * Maybe this will have an impact on the policy debate? "Coast Guard officials said Monday afternoon that the oil spill near Louisiana was now covering an area in the Gulf of Mexico of 48 miles by 39 miles at its widest points, and they have been unable to engage a mechanism that could shut off the well thousands of feet below the ocean's surface." * Should be an interesting case: "The Supreme Court, wading into a thicket of free-speech and children's rights issues, agreed Monday to decide whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors." * On a related note, there will be no announcement this week on the next Supreme Court nominee. * Mary Kay Henry, not Anna Burger, will head the SEIU. * What was Joseph Sean McVey doing at Asheville Regional Airport yesterday, armed and interested in seeing the president? (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip) * Howard Kurtz gets into the fact-checking game on CNN, which is good. But if the segment is going to be a both-sides-do-it feature, that isn't good at all. * How do you know for sure the crazy immigration law passed last week in Arizona goes too far? Tom Tancredo thinks it's excessive. * Jesus will stay on Trinity University's diploma. * George W. Bush's memoir will be released later this year -- a week after the midterms. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... The debate over Wall Street reform hasn't exactly been a good one for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). After a behind-closed-doors chat with some hedge fund managers and bankers, he launched an effort to kill the bill with a brazen lie, which no one could defend. And yet, in about a half-hour, it appears McConnell will nevertheless lead his united Republican caucus in unanimous opposition to even starting a debate on this popular legislation. Faiz Shakir reports this afternoon on McConnell's explanation on why the Senate shouldn't even be allowed to vote on the motion to proceed.
Ever get the feeling McConnell just doesn't care anymore? It's as if he assumes -- probably correctly -- that there are no consequences for adopting an almost pathological approach to the truth, so he'll just be as shameless as he can be. Before anyone thinks McConnell may be more ignorant than mendacious, don't buy it. He's been in the Senate for a quarter of a century. He knows what a motion to proceed is. He knows getting an up-or-down vote to begin a floor debate isn't the end of the discussion; it's the start. McConnell knows this but lies anyway, because he can. I am curious about something, though, and hoping some enterprising young reporter can pester McConnell about this. Last month, the Minority Leader was one of many Senate Republicans who insisted that lawmakers do what polls tell them to do. Senators must respect the will of the voters, McConnell and others said, or our democracy suffers. Well, Americans overwhelmingly back the Wall Street reform effort -- the one Republicans are apparently afraid to even debate on the Senate floor. What happened the GOP notion that policymakers have a responsibility to do what the polls tell them to do? —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
GRASSLEY CONTINUES TO TAKE CREDIT FOR BILL HE OPPOSED.... During the debate over health care reform, few, if any, policymakers played as absurd a role in the reform process as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa. From advancing demonstrably ridiculous claims to forcing needless delays to brazen hypocrisy and contradictions, the Iowa Republican was an obnoxious force. Given that he was the Senate Republicans' point-man on health care, this was a problem. It was pretty amusing, then, to see Grassley last month start to take credit for some provisions in the Affordable Care Act. In a press release, Grassley praised some of the effects of the legislation, and credited his own work for making these benefits possible. Igor Volsky reports today that Grassley has done it again, "highlighting how the new law would help Medicare beneficiaries in rural Iowa." This is from the conservative senator's latest press release:
Remember, Chuck Grassley repeatedly tried to kill the proposal, fought to prevent the Senate from debating it, fought to prevent the Senate from even voting on it, and repeatedly concluded that the law itself is unconstitutional. But just in case any Iowans end up liking what's in the new law, Grassley also wants folks to know some of the good stuff was his idea (even though he voted against the bill that included his ideas). Shameless. Just shameless. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF THE DEBATE?.... In about two hours, the Senate Democratic leadership will try to bring a bill to the floor on Wall Street reform. The goal, of course, is to start the debate. If the threats are accurate, every Republican in the chamber will vote this afternoon to block the debate from getting underway, and since there will "only" be 59 votes out 100 to get the process started, the GOP obstructionism will have its desired effect. Efforts to find a bipartisan compromise continue -- by all accounts, there is broad agreement on most of the key elements of the proposal -- but in the meantime, Republicans now have a new strategy in mind.
Let's pause to acknowledge an often overlooked detail. The Senate has a mechanism -- it's called a floor debate -- which is actually pretty useful in a situation like this. Senators can present their ideas to their colleagues, in an entirely open and transparent process. Amendments can be proposed, considered, and voted on. Language can be altered. Provisions can be improved or eliminated. It's all part of how the process was designed to work. Once the debate is complete, senators can vote for or against the bill, and support or oppose a filibuster. But Republicans have a different approach in mind -- they don't want to even start the debate. Despite all the talk of the last year about transparency, GOP officials insist that all work on Wall Street reform occur behind closed doors, and the ideas that could be debated on the floor are instead hashed out in secret, in between Republican fundraisers with representatives of the very institutions affected by the legislation. This is ridiculous. As Matt Yglesias explained this afternoon, "On financial regulation, over the months I've heard a number of Republican Senators say reasonablish things about the bill, or about problems with the bill. But it's time to put up or shut up. If you're concerned the bill doesn't address something, then write an amendment to address it. If you think the bill is too tough in some respect, then write an amendment to weaken it. There's no good reason to insist that everything be done in a secret Shelby-Dodd negotiating process." Instead of Republicans crafting their own version of the same bill, why don't they just bring those ideas to the floor as part of the debate? Why are they so afraid of having a public discussion about bringing some safeguards and accountability to a financial industry that nearly destroyed the global economic system? —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
HOW CRIST FOUND HIMSELF IN THIS MESS.... This is bound to be an interesting week for Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R-for now). If he's going to drop out of the Republican Senate primary and run as an independent, Crist has until noon on Friday (April 30) to announce his decision. The governor's third-party bid seems to be a "foregone conclusion" in GOP circles, but there's been no announcement about when the public can expect to hear about Crist's plans. But while the political world waits, it's worth taking a moment to ponder how, exactly, Charlie Crist reached this point. In 2006, a strong year for Democrats, Crist cruised to an easy seven-point victory in Florida's gubernatorial election. By 2008, despite the GOP's plunging popularity, Crist had sky-high approval ratings -- including surprisingly strong support from Dems and independents. He was considered for McCain's presidential ticket, was a shoo-in for the Senate, and it was widely assumed that it was only a matter of time before Crist was a tough-to-beat Republican candidate for national office. And while it seemed impossible to predict a year ago, Crist is now likely to give up on the party he's always belonged to. What happened? Adam Smith and Steve Bousquet had a terrific report over the weekend. It's worth reading in its entirety, but of particular interest was the description of Crist embracing the mantle of post-partisanship.
Republicans were willing to tolerate Crist's occasional heresies because they didn't necessarily think they had a choice -- their GOP governor was a rising star, a popular Republican in a key state at a time when the party was faltering, and party leaders weren't inclined to attack one of their own. It apparently took a while for the Republican base to shake off that tolerance for Crist's relative moderation when they realized his far-right primary challenger actually stood a chance at winning. Worse, it took even longer for Crist to realize it -- his aides kept warning him that he needed to tend to the party's base to stave off primary troubles, but Crist wouldn't listen. As for the near future, the obvious question is over what, exactly, Crist will do, and when he'll likely make his move. But I also wonder how fierce Republicans will be if/when he makes the leap and announces an independent bid. The GOP is vicious as a matter of course in campaigns, but their rage towards those who've betrayed them is usually even worse. And then there's that other matter: if Crist were to win an independent bid, who would he caucus with in 2011? —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
THE RNC'S FAKE-CENSUS MAILINGS.... The Republican National Committee has been using fake-census materials as part of a sleazy fundraising campaign. The deceptive tactics were so repugnant, Congress felt the need to take action and place new restrictions on the tactic. And yet, the RNC keeps doing it anyway. In March, the House voted unanimously to restrict fake-census mailings. A month ago today, the Senate approved the same measure, also without a single opponent. "It is critical that people have confidence and trust in the census process and these mailings confuse people and jeopardize our efforts to have a full and accurate count," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate panel that oversees the census, said at the time. "Banning these despicable practices is an important part of that process." Except the ban apparently isn't enough. The RNC keeps sending them. Zachary Roth had this report this morning:
If I only had a nickel for every time I've asked myself that question. By way of a defense, the RNC stated its belief that the new law "did not apply to our mailer." When Roth asked an RNC spokesperson to elaborate, he declined. Presumably, the U.S. Postal Service -- not the Justice Department -- will launch some kind of inquiry into this. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
WHEN LIFE HANDS A CANDIDATE LEMONS.... In Illinois, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is the Democratic nominee for Senate, hoping to hold onto the seat held until 2008 by Barack Obama. That task became a little more difficult on Friday when federal regulators shut down a bank owned and operated by Giannoulias' family -- a bank Alexi Giannoulias used to help run. Michael Scherer put it this way: "The Illinois Senate race is playing out like an academic case study in crises management. Imagine this: Your client, a former chief loan officer for a local bank, is a Democrat heading into a Republican election year, in a state long stained by political corruption. Amid enormous public outrage over the damage wrought by bank excess, your client's bank is seized by the Feds for having overextended itself in the mortgage market. Now figure out how to win the race." It's a challenge, to be sure, but I have to admit, this ad is actually pretty good. Why run from a problem when a campaign can try to turn it around, and make it a positive? In this minute-long spot, Giannoulias briefly mentions he left the bank four years ago (read: its recent problems aren't his fault), and it was fine (read: he did a good job). But the economy collapsed (read: not Giannoulias' fault), and the family bank, like a lot of small businesses, couldn't survive (read: Giannoulias' family is facing the same problems lots of families are forced to endure). And if you want to help get things back on track, the ad argues, don't go with Rep. Mark Kirk (R) -- seen here, arm in arm with George W. Bush -- who didn't even vote to extend unemployment benefits to those struggling in the recession. "People want someone who's gonna fight for 'em," Giannoulias says in the spot. "Someone who's been through tough times, someone who's seen, looked at those problems in the face and continues to move and continues to fight and to struggle for people, and that's why I'm running for the U.S. Senate." Time will tell if this is effective, but it's a rather classic example of making lemonade out of lemons. Who would have thought Giannoulias would make an ad embracing the failure of his family's bank? —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Vice President Biden campaigned in Pennsylvania the other day, and told voters he'd consider it "a personal favor" if they voted for Sen. Arlen Specter. * By all appearances, Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) career as a senator from Utah will come to an end this year. Bennett, after three terms as a conservative senator, is being rejected by GOP delegates as not being right-wing enough. * In a bit of a surprise, Minnesota state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (D) won her party's convention nod for governor, edging out Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak (D). Kelliher may yet face additional challengers, however, in advance of an Aug. 10 primary. * In Georgia, there were some hopes among Democrats that state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond (D) would be competitive against Sen. Johnny Isakson (R), but the latest Rasmussen poll shows the Republican incumbent ahead by 16, 51% to 35%. * Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-Wis.) re-election prospects appear relatively secure, but the incumbent is nevertheless launching his first television ad of the season this week. It emphasizes, among other things, his opposition to the Wall Street bailout bill in 2008. * In keeping with the general pattern, Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef (R) has announced he's scrapping his campaign against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in New York. The pattern, of course, refers to a seemingly-endless stream of Republicans who get ready to take on Gillibrand, only to drop out soon after. * New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) won't be up for a second term until 2013, but he's off to a rough start. After nearly four months in office, the governor's approval rating is down to a woeful 33%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
OBAMA KICKS OFF MIDTERM CAMPAIGN SEASON PUSH.... President Obama has already taken some steps to help shape the midterm elections -- raising money, helping recruit candidates, etc. -- but today, those efforts will take a significant leap forward. This video message will go out to Obama supporters today, putting the president at the heart of the Democrats' midterm strategy. The clip is reportedly "the first in a series of personal efforts designed to rekindle the grass-roots magic that propelled him to the presidency in service to his party's congressional and gubernatorial candidates." It's also part of a larger kickoff, built around the DNC's $50 million plan for the cycle. Party chair Tim Kaine has a "community-by-community" plan that's intended to build upon Howard Dean's 50-state strategy from the 2006 midterms (which, as I recall, turned out well for Dems). The pitch is pretty straightforward -- the Obama campaign brought a lot of people into the process two years ago, and if they get engaged again this year, it'll help Democratic candidates considerably. "A few months ago, we asked you to help us set our priorities for 2010, and tell us how you thought we could win elections at all levels of government," the president says in the video. "You told us your first priority was to make sure the same people who were inspired to vote for the first time in 2008 go back to the polls in 2010. So that's what we're going to do." The alternative, the president reminds his audience, is GOP gains that could "undo all that we have accomplished." There's reason for skepticism. As Dems saw in the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, voters can like the president but nevertheless reject the candidates the president backs. But aides say they're prepared. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said, "We fully understand that [the relationship between Obama and his supporters is] not automatically transferable to other candidates. It's going to take a lot of work, and that's what we're doing." At a minimum, it settles the question about whether Dems are prepared to nationalize the elections, and whether the president would be considered a strategic asset to the party during a difficult year. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
HAYWORTH EXPLAINS HIS 'BIRTHER' INCLINATIONS.... State lawmakers in Arizona not only passed an odious new immigration law last week, they also moved forward on a "birther" bill that would require presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate before they can be on the ballot in the state. It was a reminder that the strain of madness in contemporary Republican thought is still going strong, 14 months after President Obama took office. Nevertheless, the nutty effort has its defenders. One of them wants to be a U.S. senator.
So, J.D. Hayworth thinks the guy who says he's Barack Obama might not really be Barack Obama? Is this the point behind the "identity theft" concern? As Marc Ambinder noted the other day, "I want to find Republicans to take seriously, but it is hard. Not because they don't exist -- serious Republicans -- but because ... they are marginalized, even self-marginalizing and the base itself seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking, and that therapy is a substitute for thinking." Hayworth will face Sen. John McCain in an Aug. 24 primary. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
CLIMATE BILL NOT DEAD YET.... By late Saturday, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced his intention to walk away from his own proposal, it looked like the climate/energy bill, poised to be unveiled today, was just about dead. The tri-partisan Kerry/Graham/Lieberman package -- labeled the American Power Act -- faced an uphill climb anyway, but with Graham walking away at the 11th hour, the future looked bleak. By late yesterday, however, the bill's "prospects were brightening slightly," and Graham was once again talking strategy with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).
By all accounts, the White House is also acting to prevent the bill's collapse, and Rahm Emanuel and Carol Browner, among others, worked the phones over the weekend. What's more, if Graham's main concern is over the calendar -- he balked because he believes Dems want to tackle immigration reform ahead of the climate bill -- Harry Reid's main spokesperson is signaling flexibility. It's clear that "climate negotiations are much farther along than the immigration bill," Jim Manley said, meaning that climate "could be the first to come to the floor." So, the good news is, the climate bill isn't quite dead, at least not yet. The bad news, however, is that Graham -- who still hasn't quite explained the specific rationale behind his outrage -- now has even more leverage over the outcome than he did before. Indeed, the dominant aspect of this debate has, all of a sudden, become, "What can Dems do to make Lindsey Graham happy." On a related note, the WaPo had some good reporting today on the behind-the-scenes efforts to line up support for the effort from the business community.
Sounds like they might need to help convince Graham, too. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
THE FATE OF WALL STREET REFORM.... Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) scheduled the first procedural vote -- the motion to proceed -- on Wall Street reform for about 5 p.m. (ET) today. As of yesterday, Republicans were still prepared to voice their unanimous opposition, blocking the debate from getting underway. Any chance Reid will scrap his plans, knowing that the GOP will block an up-or-down vote on getting the floor process started? Apparently not -- Reid's office insists today's cloture vote will proceed as planned. Democratic leaders have no expectations that today's vote will go well. But as Roll Call reported, they also don't seem to mind.
It's almost bizarre to see Dems acting with such confidence, but it's well grounded in fact. If the motion to proceed fails, as seems likely, Dems will use this against Republicans, while the process of striking a bipartisan deal continues. By all accounts, Dems will eventually get the legislation they want and the evidence of GOP obstructionism they want. Dems hardly ever feel like they have the upper hand. It's quite a change of pace. On a related note, polls bolster Democratic attitudes. A new poll from ABC News found, "Two-thirds of Americans support stricter federal regulation of banks and other financial institutions, and by a double-digit margin the public trusts President Obama above the Republicans in Congress to handle the issue." —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
AMBITION AND SUCCESS ARE NOT OFTEN PUNISHED.... Today, a tri-partisan climate/energy bill was supposed to be unveiled after months of efforts. The package -- crafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- faced an uphill climb, but the legwork had been done, and it stood a fighting chance of passage. Late Saturday, Lindsey Graham signaled his intention to walk away. As he explained it, Democratic leaders seem more interested in tackling immigration before climate -- instead of the other way around, as he'd been led to believe -- so he's inclined to kill both efforts. Joe Klein argued yesterday that Graham has done Democrats "a big favor." When I saw the headline, I thought Klein may have identified some other way to get the bills passed without Graham's support. But Klein was actually arguing the opposite -- Graham's doing Dems a favor because he's killing the legislation Dems want to pass.
I see the political landscape much differently. For one thing, I've seen no evidence to suggest Americans want policymakers to stop having so many successes. This came up a bit last year -- many pundits insisted that President Obama was doing "too much, too fast" -- but it was never borne out by the polls. I tend to think the electorate will be more impressed by Democratic successes than by relative inaction over the six months preceding the midterm elections. Put it this way: when was the last time a party was punished by voters for successfully passing too much of its policy agenda, and fulfilling too many of its campaign promises? For another, to characterize the climate/energy bill as "effectively guaranteeing higher energy prices" isn't entirely fair -- with various incentives and tax credits, most consumers wouldn't see a price increase, and many would actually see their energy bills drop. But perhaps most importantly, I think Klein underestimates what the lawmaking process will be like in 2011 and 2012. He wants to see bills on climate and immigration pass -- and so do I -- but Klein seems to believe policymakers can just pick this up again in the next Congress. That's almost certainly not the case. In the Senate, the Democratic majority is poised to shrink quite a bit, making it nearly impossible to overcome Republican filibusters. In the House, the Democratic majority may very well disappear entirely, and a GOP-led House will immediately ignore every policy request made by the administration. It's why I think Klein has it backwards -- those who want to see progress on climate and immigration have to act quickly, because this is likely the last chance policymakers will have on either effort for quite a while. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
CALLING OUT MCCONNELL, CONT'D.... I'm always encouraged when Paul Krugman appears on one of the Sunday shows; he tends to say things most guests don't. Take yesterday, for example. On ABC's "This Week," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) spoke at some length about the need for the Wall Street reform bill pending on the Hill to be "bipartisan." Soon after, the roundtable discussion focused on this, and the NYT columnist emphasized a point that often goes overlooked. "Anyone who says we need to be bipartisan should bear in mind that for the last several weeks, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has been trying to stop reform with possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics, which is the claim that having regulation of the banks is actually bailing out the banks," Krugman noted. "And basically, the argument boils down to saying that what we really need to do to deal with fires is abolish the fire department. Because then people will know that they can't let their buildings burn in the first place, right? It's incredible. So anyone who says bipartisan, should say, bipartisan doesn't include the Senate minority leader." Sure, it's a little -- but only a little -- hyperbolic to say McConnell's "institutionalized bailout" lie is "possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics," but McConnell's breathtaking dishonesty deserves to be called out in bold terms. But Krugman's larger point is arguably more important: the conventional wisdom continues to insist the lawmaking process is somehow inadequate, and possibly even illegitimate, if proposals aren't "bipartisan." But we're also dealing with a dispute in which the leadership of a party has no qualms about blatantly, shamelessly lying. And while it didn't come up, the same dynamic has existed in every other policy debate of the last year and a half -- health care, economic recovery, combating global warming, etc. -- in which Dems are told they must gain Republican support, and the GOP leadership demonstrates its commitment to the process by making things up. Which is why Krugman's point is worth emphasizing, especially for establishment figures that assume Dems must be doing something wrong if Republican leaders aren't happy. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
April 25, 2010
GRAHAM ASKED FOR 'STEPPED UP' ACTION ON IMMIGRATION.... Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is so upset that Dems might take up immigration reform this year, he's prepared to kill his own tri-partisan climate/energy bill. Some of his concerns are reasonable -- Graham was told the climate bill would be considered before immigration, and now he'd been led to believe otherwise. But before anyone feels too sympathetic for Graham, let's not lose sight of one key detail: Democrats are, to a certain extent, doing what Graham asked them to do. The South Carolina Republican began working on a bipartisan immigration reform proposal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last October. On March 11, they met with President Obama at the White House to go over their plan, and get the presidential green light to continue. Soon after, the two senators co-wrote an op-ed insisting that the status quo on immigration policy is "badly broken," and the nation's "security and economic well-being depend" on the kind of reform Graham and Schumer are proposing. It was around that time that Graham publicly stated his hopes that Obama would get more involved in pushing immigration reform, in order to give it a chance to pass this year.
The president apparently agreed. The West Wing started taking immigration reform far more seriously, and the president even started reaching out to other Republican senators about generating some broader support for immigration reform this year. Obama, in other words, took Graham's advice. And now Graham is furious about it. Worse, he's prepared to kill both the climate bill and the immigration bill because he's outraged over the latter being prioritized over the former. In terms of the calendar, I'm generally inclined to agree with Graham's larger point -- given that the climate bill has already passed the House, and so much of the legwork has already been done for the next round, it makes sense to me for the Senate to finish Wall Street reform, then tackle energy, then immigration. I'm even inclined to agree with Graham that Dems are using political considerations, not policy goals, to prioritize between the competing policies. But by threatening to kill both of the efforts he's already invested so much time in, Graham is overreacting on an almost comical scale. Graham can't call on the president to step up on immigration, and then throw a fit when the president does as he asks. It's enough to make me wonder if, perhaps, Lindsey Graham wasn't really serious about either initiative, and last night's tantrum is the result of a senator who's negotiated in bad faith. —Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
GIVING THE CONFUSED CROWD FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT.... One of the reasons I'm inclined to write about the Tea Partiers is that there are still many in the political establishment who believe the political mainstream should do more to take the Tea Party crowd and its hysterical cries seriously. This strikes me as silly -- most of the activists seem to have no idea what they're talking about. Why explore substantive challenges with angry mobs who reject reason and evidence? By all appearances, this hasn't quite sunk in yet with many observers. Thomas Friedman has a column today suggesting Tea Partiers strive to "become something more than just entertainment for Fox News." Specifically, the columnist recommends that these activists start taking energy policy seriously and endorse "a $10 'Patriot Fee' on every barrel of imported oil, with all proceeds going to pay down our national debt." To Friedman, such an approach seems consistent with the Tea Party's purported goals -- taking a progressive approach to energy policy would help lessen our dependence on the Middle East, lower the deficit, improve our security goals, leave future generations with a better environment, etc. Friedman isn't entirely naive. He concedes, "Yes, I know, dream on. The Tea Party is heading to the hard libertarian right and would never support an energy bill that puts a fee on carbon." And to be sure, on a substantive level, his suggestion has merit. But I think Friedman, like many establishment observers, doesn't fully appreciate how ridiculous the Tea Party effort really is. John Cole summarizes the situation nicely.
Well, no, of course not. If the right's rhetoric is any indication, we're talking about a crowd that often perceives climate science as a Marxist plot. The so-called "movement," on the whole, doesn't seem to care about policy. It hardly even seems to care about its own purported goals -- this crowd not only applauded when Republicans added $5 trillion to the debt and decided to stop trying to pay for their own initiatives, they also took to the streets to complain about taxes after getting a tax cut. Expecting far-right activists to move to the left on energy policy, just because it's wise and in their interests, is regrettably a fool's errand. Friedman isn't wrong on policy grounds; he's wrong to think unhinged conservatives who think the president is Hitler and the Affordable Care Act represents a "government takeover" can be reasoned with. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)
JOURNALISM, STANDARDS, AND TELEPHONES.... The NYT's Brian Stelter had an interesting piece the other day about Jon Stewart and his disdain for Fox News. One recent incident was of particular interest.
It was, to be sure, deeply amusing. The Republican cable network, in one of its more farcical moments of the month, speculated about its new conspiracy theory -- Fox News personalities saw a dot on a partial circle and assumed the White House was sending secret signals to the Middle East, because of the kinda-sorta-but-not-really similarities between the atomic model and the Islamic star and crescent moon. Stewart's office picked up the phone, found out the truth, and explained why the observation pushed by "Fox & Friends" was idiotic. When Stewart describes Fox News as a "truly a terrible, cynical, disingenuous news organization," this helps prove the point. But the NYT piece suggests there's a larger significance to what transpired here.
Yes, but the underlying point here is that this example represents evidence that "The Daily Show" really is engaged in professional journalism. Stewart's office picked up the phone, while the clowns on "Fox & Friends" preferred to air their unique brand of stupidity. But I'm not sure I buy the premise. I certainly give credit to "The Daily Show" for taking the time to get the real story on the Rutherford-Bohr model, but I don't think that makes Jon Stewart more of a journalist; I think it makes "Fox & Friends" more of a transparent joke. After all, as Stewart said on the air when explaining his call to the White House, all it proved is that his phone works. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
WALL STREET REFORM TOMORROW? DON'T COUNT ON IT.... On Thursday afternoon Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he was tired of waiting -- Wall Street reform would be brought to the Senate floor for a debate on Monday. "I'm not going to waste any more time of the American people," he declared. It started the clock on the first procedural vote -- the motion to proceed -- to be held at 5:15 p.m. (ET) tomorrow. Republicans will, of course, filibuster the motion -- it's what they do -- but Dems were hopeful that at least one GOP senator would vote to let the Senate debate the legislation. As of this morning, it looks like that won't happen.
Dodd sounded optimistic, though, that if the first procedural vote fails, as now appears likely, they'll still figure out how to craft a deal later this week. In the interim, Democrats will likely try to exploit the GOP obstructionism. Expect the message to be something along the lines of, "Even now, Republicans won't let the Senate so much as debate a bill to bring some safeguards to Wall Street." —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
THE SENATE STILL NEEDS REFORM, TOO.... With a little more than six months left before the end of the 111th Congress, leaders of the Democratic majority would love to pass three more major pieces of legislation: Wall Street reform, a climate/energy bill, and immigration reform. If it were simply a matter of letting the Senate vote, up or down, on each, it's pretty likely all three would become law with time to spare. But we know, of course, that's not how the system works anymore. Senators can't vote until Republican filibusters are broken -- and the GOP's scandalous abuse applies to every bill of any significance. It's worth remembering, then, that talk of reforming the dysfunctional upper chamber is still percolating in the background.
McConnell replied that Dems are just frustrated because Republicans won't let them vote on legislation. That is, of course, exactly right. For his part, Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), also a senior member of the Rules Committee and the Senate's informal chamber historian, defended the institution's unique rules that he holds dear, but reminded his colleagues that reforms are sometimes "necessary." Byrd urged the Senate to "remain open to changes in the Senate rules." And speaking of possible changes to the Senate rules, there are plenty of proposals members can consider. The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus presented four (and a half) very sensible ideas for reforming the process this week; Johns Hopkins' Charles Stevenson had an op-ed in Roll Call the other day calling on the Senate to eliminate filibusters for motions to proceed; and not too long ago, Binghamton University's Jonathan Krasno and Gregory Robinson presented a compelling vision of a three-step plan, which includes forcing 41 senators to assemble the votes to continue debate (rather than the other way around) and reducing debate times (no more 30-hour delays after the initial cloture). While these efforts continue to be mulled over, Schumer has promised to proceed with a series of additional hearings. I have low expectations, but at this point, it's good to see the issue get any attention at all. —Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
CLIMATE BILL HANGS BY A THREAD.... Tomorrow was going to be a critical day for a new climate/energy bill. The tri-partisan plan -- crafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- had been shaped over the course of several months, and its proponents were finally going to unveil the details at a Capitol Hill event. Its prospects looked murky, but much of the necessary legwork had already been done -- the White House was on board with the provisions, and many business leaders, whose support would be critical, were poised to endorse the effort. Late yesterday, Lindsey Graham signaled his intention to walk away, and in the process, may have killed the legislation.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Graham's concerns -- all things considered, it makes more sense to me to tackle climate before immigration -- but his tactical demands are a little over the top. In effect, Graham is saying, "Do things in the order I prefer or I'll kill both major legislative initiatives." Specifically, Graham wrote in his letter, "I will not allow our hard work to be rolled out in a manner that has no chance of success." He will, however, walk away from months of negotiations, guaranteeing that his hard work has no chance of success. In other words, Graham is afraid a push on immigration reform might undermine his climate/energy bill, so he's decided to undermine his climate/energy bill. I've heard of smarter strategies. There are at least some efforts underway to save the bill. Reid office issued a statement last night saying the Democratic leadership is committed to both initiatives, and the climate/energy bill "could be next" on the legislative calendar "if it's ready." As for the administration, Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, also issued a statement, urging Graham not to walk away from his own effort. Nevertheless, the announcement scheduled for tomorrow has been "indefinitely postponed." —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
April 24, 2010
LOWDOWN ON LOWDEN.... Sue "Chicken for Checkups" Lowden clearly didn't have a very good week. The Republican Senate hopeful became something of a national laughingstock with her livestock-centered approach to health care delivery. "Let's change the system and talk about what the possibilities are. I'm telling you that this works," Lowden said on Monday. "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say I'll paint your house.... Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system." Democrats are anxious to keep this story alive as long as possible, and they're having some success. Nevada Dems, for example, held a protest yesterday outside Lowden's campaign office in Reno. It came just hours after some very clever folks launched a new website: "The Lowden Plan, a simple health care plan anyone with a few thousand live chickens can use." There's a very helpful Lowden Plan Medical Chicken Calculator on the site. But as entertaining as this is, there's a related policy observation that shouldn't go overlooked. Paul Krugman explained late yesterday:
It's been lost in the shuffle, but Krugman's description of the GOP line is absolutely right. Indeed, as Lowden became a national punch-line, the Nevada Republican Party predicated its defense of the Senate candidate on exactly this point: Lowden's over-arching concern is that Americans rely on health insurance to help cover medical bills, and that's a bad thing. Nevada GOP communications director Ciara Turns told Eric Kleefeld the other day, "[Lowden] was clearly trying to make the point that if we moved away from an insurance-based system and more people started paying cash for their health care, then prices would come down. But [Democrats] don't want to address that ... because it's a legitimate point that they can't argue." Now, looking specifically at the plain wording of Lowden's argument, she was specifically (and repeatedly) talking up the notion of bartering, not bargaining. Turns' interpretation is generous, to put it mildly. But even if we accept the defense at face value, as Krugman explained, the underlying policy dispute is hardly any better for Lowden and the Nevada GOP. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)
SOME LEGACIES CAN'T BE 'RESTORED'.... A few years ago, Chris Matthews said, on the air, that "everybody sort of likes" George W. Bush, except for "the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left." Nearly five years later, we're still hearing similar talk -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said this week that Bush "will go down as a very, very good president," adding that the former president deserves support from anyone "who is not a rank political hack." Perry's remarks, ridiculous though they may be, were not an example of isolated nonsense. Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) was roundly applauded when he praised Bush at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this month. A College Republican chapter in Kentucky this week created an annual "W Day." And just the other day, Slate ran a piece profiling the efforts of the "Bush Restoration Project."
Shapiro, it's worth noting, "says he regularly exchanges e-mail with Karl Rove." I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Bush's unwavering supporters created their own reality during his presidency; there's probably no reason for them to take a more reasonable course now. But I'm hard pressed to imagine how Bush's failed presidency can be made to look like anything other than a spectacular debacle. Consider some of the messes he left for his successor to clean up: an economy in freefall, two costly and mismanaged wars, a deteriorating job market, a crushing debt, enormous budget deficits, terrorist threats, a dysfunctional health care system, a housing crisis, a collapsing U.S. auto industry, a deteriorating national reputation on the global stage, and systemic problems on energy, immigration, and detainees. Ask even Bush's most loyal sycophants to name actual accomplishments, they'll generally point to tax cuts and 9/11. But tax cuts didn't help the economy -- during Bush's two terms, incomes fell, poverty rose, and there were two recessions -- and the attacks of Sept. 11 weren't an "accomplishment." That said, if Republicans see value in debating the Bush/Cheney legacy going forward, I don't imagine most Democrats would mind. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week are reactions from faith communities to the outrageous new anti-immigrant law in Arizona. As widespread as the national disappointment has been, some of the strongest criticism has come from religious leaders.
In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony called the law "mean-spirited" and compared it to Nazi repression. Jim Wallis described the Arizona measure as "a social and racial sin," a "policy of deliberate political cruelty," and part of an effort to "wage war on the body of Christ." As Democrats take steps to challenge the Arizona law, it would appear they can count on support from large and influential religious institutions. Also from the God Machine this week: * On Capitol Hill, the Congressional Prayer Caucus (yes, there's a Congressional Prayer Caucus) launched a new House resolution to argue that the federal government's recognition of an official National Day of Prayer is constitutional, despite a recent federal court ruling to the contrary. The measure, H. RES. 1273, is up to 70 co-sponsors as of yesterday. * Unhinged media personality Glenn Beck will deliver the commencement address next month at the Falwell-founded Liberty University in Virginia. Beck is a Mormon, which makes the selection a little odd, but he's also a political radical, so he'll probably fit right in. * And Comedy Central's "South Park" ignored warnings and aired an episode this week that included a representation of the Prophet Muhammad as an animated character. After an Islamic extremist site posted apparent threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the NYPD stepped up security at the network's headquarters. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
THE UNI-PARTISAN 'CLEANSING'.... The Washington Post's Dana Milbank had a good column on Republicans turning on Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, and the fact that he's "being drummed out" of the Republican Party. But as is too often the case, the column couldn't leave well enough alone. Milbank's critique of Crist and contemporary GOP politics was, by and large, spot on. National leaders who adored Crist and sought his favor now want nothing to do with him. Crist's "friends" won't return his calls. The governor "developed a reputation for bipartisan work," despite pushing a relatively conservative policy agenda, which Republicans appreciated, right up until they decided he wasn't nearly right-wing enough. "Crist is saying and doing what he always has done," the column noted, "it's GOP leadership that has changed." But major media outlets have an unwritten rule: all criticism of Republicans has to include related criticism of Democrats, whether it makes sense or not. Milbank 's otherwise fine column, then, included this unfortunate observation:
Look, the parties' respective bases will always prefer candidates more in line with their ideology and agenda. But to state as a matter of fact that "both parties have been undergoing ideological cleansing" is a mistake. Sure, Blanche Lincoln is facing a competitive primary, in part because she's been a frequent source of disappointment to the party, and in part because polls show her looking very vulnerable, causing many Dems to consider an alternative. The party establishment, however, continues to support Lincoln -- it's not as if we see the DSCC throwing her under the bus, the way we see with the NRSC and Crist. Regardless, one primary for a vulnerable incumbent does not an "ideological cleansing" make. If Dems were seriously trying to drive those who strayed from the party line from the ranks, Blue Dogs would be under heavy fire, and the party wouldn't have rallied behind Brad Ellsworth in Indiana. Charlie Melacon in Louisiana and Cal Cunningham in North Carolina aren't exactly MoveOn.org members, either, but both enjoy party support for their Senate bids. In contrast, there's an actual "ideological cleansing" underway in the Republican Party. Crist has been deemed insufficiently conservative, so he's being driven out. Specter was deemed insufficiently conservative, so he became a Democrat. Dede Scozzafava was deemed insufficiently conservative, so she was driven from her congressional race. In Arizona, Sen. John McCain (R) is facing a tough primary challenge because he's been deemed insufficiently conservative. In Utah, Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) career is hanging by a thread because -- you guessed it -- he's been deemed insufficiently conservative. Does "both sides do it" really have to go into every piece? —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
GUY FAWKES, NEW REPUBLICAN HERO.... Last fall, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) organized a right-wing rally on Capitol Hill for November 5, in the hopes of killing health care reform. After characterizing her followers as "insurgents" and "freedom fighters," Bachmann urged far-right activists to, in her word, "scare" federal lawmakers. The scheduling of Bachmann's Capitol Hill soiree was a little disconcerting -- she picked a date widely known as Guy Fawkes Night. In other words, one of the country's most extreme lawmakers chose to rally right-wing activists, label them an "insurgency," and encourage them to roam the halls of Congress deliberately "scaring" members of Congress, on the infamous date that marks an attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Fortunately, 11/5 came and went without incident. But the Republican affection for Guy Fawkes has apparently not dissipated. Time's Michael Scherer had this report:
Josh Marshall added, "I find this completely bewildering. The Republican Governors Association is embracing the mantle of a 17th century radical who tried but failed to pull off a mass casualty terrorist attack to kill the King of England and all of Parliament.... Nothing shocks me anymore. But this shocks me." It's a reminder that the Republican mainstream made a right turn at scary, and have arrived right at stark raving mad. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)
SOONER STATE SCARES.... Between its outrageous anti-immigrant efforts and initial support for "birther" legislation, Arizona has generated some ugly national headlines of late. But about 900 miles to the east, Oklahoma has been nearly as offensive. Some right-wing lawmakers in the Sooner State have begun work on a new, privately-recruited militia, which would enjoy the blessing of the state, and would be armed and trained to resist federal encroachment. Oklahoma's state House also recently approved a bill mandating that firearms manufactured in their state would be exempt from federal regulations. (thanks to reader E.P. for the heads-up) And on reproductive rights, conservative Oklahoma lawmakers successfully passed a proposal that would "require women seeking [abortion] procedures early in their pregnancies to undergo an invasive form of ultrasound."
The good news is, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (D) vetoed the bill...
...and the bad news is Henry's veto will probably be overridden. It's a good thing Oklahomans have elected all of those small-government types to the legislature, who will force citizens to undergo medical procedures they don't want. Nothing says "limited government" like state-mandated, involuntary, invasive procedures, right? —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
April 23, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * As expected, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed into law an odious new anti-immigrant bill today. * At least 58 people killed in Iraq: "A coordinated series of explosions struck a party headquarters, two mosques, a market and a shop in Baghdad on Friday, deepening the country's turmoil amid a political impasse and a concerted military campaign against the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq." * Pulling the alarm: "Pushed to the brink of bankruptcy, Greece on Friday requested a massive, $56 billion rescue that is aimed at preventing a financial meltdown in the heart of Europe and will test the resolve of the European Union to uphold its pledge to bail out the troubled Mediterranean nation." * New home sales surged 27% in March. It was "the biggest monthly increase in 47 years." * Is the climate/energy bill dead? * The Treasury Department expects the overall price tag for TARP to be as low as $87 billion, when all is said and done. * Death threats force Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to close his district offices. * The disaster at the Deepwater Horizon rig has not gone unnoticed in the context of the debate over drilling policy. * FCC Commissioner Michael Copps envisions a major fight over net neutrality. * Congressional Dems craft a legislative plan to respond to the Citizens United ruling. * President Obama is the most popular leader in the world. Conservatives will no doubt try to argue that this is awful news. * Killing an American by firing-squad? In the 21st century? * The DADT conspiracy theories don't stand up well to scrutiny. * Matt Yglesias underscores the problem with Jonah Goldberg's work. * Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor who's convinced the president isn't a natural born citizen, has thrown away a decorated military career. * Fighting against tuition hikes. * Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's (R) ridiculous lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act may help in unexpected ways. * Republicans lawmakers want to "start over." On what? On everything. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY.... Long-time readers may recall a discussion we had back in December, about the quality of the debate over health care reform. It was obvious at the time that the meaningful, interesting disputes weren't between conservatives and liberals, but between liberals and other liberals. It's not that the right remained silent; it's that they offered arguments that no serious person could find credible. Consider, just off the top of your head, the most prominent concerns raised by opponents of the Affordable Care Act. What comes to mind? "Death panels." "Socialism." "Government takeover." It was the biggest domestic policy fight in a generation, but most of the policy debate was spent debunking transparent, child-like nonsense. The left approached the debate with vibrancy, energy, and seriousness. The right thought it was fascinating to talk about the number of pages in the legislation. Making matters worse, the quality of the discourse on health care wasn't especially unusual. We endured a mind-numbing debate over economic recovery efforts because Republicans weren't prepared for a serious argument. We can't discuss Wall Street reform because Republicans keep saying "bailout" for no reason. We can't discuss a climate bill because Republicans reflexively reject the science. Every major issue has strengths and weaknesses, and every major piece of legislation is subject to legitimate criticism. In 2010, however, the right seems fundamentally unprepared to even have the conversation. Given all of this, Marc Ambinder asks today whether the right has "gone mad."
Ambinder ponders various explanations -- the habit of conservatives to take entertainers seriously as political actors, the "incentive structures exist to stomp on dissent and nuance," the epistemic closure problem in which conservatives ignore news outlets that might tell them what they don't want to hear -- but doesn't draw a clear conclusion. In a way, that's a shame. I was really hoping he'd help me understand how one of the nation's dominant political parties and the ideology it embraces chose intellectual bankruptcy. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)
DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR.... It was fairly amusing earlier this week when Glenn Beck told his radio audience that God is communicating with him directly and giving him "a plan ... that is not really a plan." As Beck explained it, "What He is asking us to do is to stand peacefully, quietly with anger, loudly with truth." As a rule, when strange men with a history of substance abuse start claiming that they're passing along messages from above, it's a strong hint that the audience might want to change the channel. What's that old joke? "When you talk to God, it's prayer; when God talks to you, it's schizophrenia"? Nevertheless, it was even more striking to hear Beck go a little further today.
Ben Dimiero summarized this nicely:
Two things. First, given the support the Roman Catholic church has shown for social justice -- a concept Beck believes is "code" for Marxism -- I'm not sure why he would consider the Vatican a source for wisdom anyway. Just last month Beck implored his minions to "run as fast as you can" away from churches that value social justice. So, why'd he go to the Vatican in the first place? And second, I know the phrase "delusions of grandeur" gets thrown around casually sometimes, but when someone who claims to receive messages from God, and characterizes himself as "wildly important" in some kind of global scenario to prevent a dark period for humanity, doesn't the phrase take on a more literal, clinical meaning? —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)
DEMS HAVE A FEW WORDS FOR WELLPOINT.... A Reuters report yesterday pointed to an insurance company practice that's so awful, it's almost hard to believe. Reporter Murray Waas explained that WellPoint, an insurance powerhouse, apparently developed a policy of targeting customers with breast cancer, and then launching fraud investigations against them so their coverage could be dropped. The practice is just breathtaking. According to government regulators and investigators, the affected customers had paid all their premiums and had no problems with their insurer, but WellPoint decided their breast cancer treatment would be expensive. It was easier to investigate them, rely on "erroneous or flimsy information," and drop the customers before the medical bills started piling up. It's "rescission" at its most offensive. Obama administration officials contacted WellPoint about this today, and White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer posted this item:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was outraged, too.
I still occasionally find it hard to believe health care reform was deemed unnecessary by so many. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
KEEPING A BIGOT AT ARM'S LENGTH.... The Rev. Franklin Graham is known for a few key parts of his background. He is, of course, the son of legendary evangelical preacher Billy Graham. He's also known for running a controversial evangelical relief organization called "Samaritan's Purse," which sought to enter Iraq in 2003 to convert Iraqis to Christianity after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. But perhaps most notably, Franklin Graham is known for hating Muslims. He famously denounced Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion" in 2001 -- and then again in 2006. This week, Graham appeared on Fox News and said Muslims can only be free if they worship Jesus Christ. With that in mind, it was disconcerting when the Pentagon invited Graham to speak next month at an event honoring the National Day of Prayer. It's the kind of association between a notorious preacher and the U.S. military that sends the wrong signal to the Middle East. Fortunately, Defense Department officials thought better of it and rescinded Graham's invitation.
Right on cue, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) denounced the Pentagon's decision, defended Graham, and even lied about the context of Graham's 2001 anti-Islam remarks, pretending he hadn't trashed the entire faith tradition. The painfully unintelligent media personality went on to suggest Pentagon officials were being "hyper-politically correct" because a Christian minister expressed "his views on matters of faith." Except, Franklin Graham didn't just express "his views on matters of faith"; he publicly denounced one of the world's largest religions, home to nearly 1.6 billion people. He's allowed to do that, of course; it's a free country. But why should the U.S. government associate itself with an unabashed bigot, and give him a platform? Put it this way: if a prominent Muslim leader denounced Christianity as a "very evil and wicked religion," and then said Christians can only be free if they convert to Islam, would Sarah Palin and her cohorts be comfortable if the imam got an invitation to speak at a religious event at the Pentagon? I suspect not. Call it a hunch. The Pentagon's decision was the right call. Bigots are free to say what they please, but they don't deserve officials' imprimatur. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * A reporter asked Florida Gov. Charlie Crist yesterday about his loyalty to the Republican Party. He responded by talking about his role in the GOP in the past tense: "I have very much enjoyed being a member of the Republican Party." * A prominent conservative voice in Nevada politics is sounding the alarm about Sue "Chicken for Checkups" Lowden's future: "If the campaign doesn't get its 'stuff' together FAST, Lowden risks becoming the next Charlie Crist." * In California, a new SurveyUSA poll shows Meg Whitman with a big lead over Steve Poizner in the Republicans' gubernatorial primary. * The same California poll shows Tom Campbell leading the Republicans' Senate primary, with Carly Fiorina running seven points behind, and Chuck DeVore a more distant third. * Republicans had struggled to find a top-tier challenger for Rep. Alan Grayson (D), but it now appears former state Sen. Daniel Webster (R) is poised to launch a campaign. * There are only three weeks left before the filing deadline for candidates in Wyoming, and as of today, there are no Democrats running for governor. If you're a Montana Democrat reading this, just think: Easiest. Primary. Ever. * In Maryland, Rasmussen shows incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) with a narrow lead over the Republican he defeated four years ago, Bob Ehrlich, 47% to 44%. * Nate Silver's latest analysis finds that Senate Dems are poised to lose quite a few seats this year, but probably not enough to lose their majority. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
OBAMA SLAMS ANTI-IMMIGRANT PUSH IN ARIZONA.... Arizona's state legislature this week passed an odious anti-immigrant bill, which is now likely to become law. The proposal, among other things, makes it a crime to lack proper immigration paperwork in the state, and "requires police officers, if they form a 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status." Arizonans would be eligible for arrest if an officer thinks they might be an illegal immigrant and can't prove otherwise. National leaders don't usually weigh in on state measures, but given the scope and the seriousness of the Arizona plan, President Obama sharply criticized the bill today.
Having the president shine a light on this raises the issue to a whole new level. With talk of a renewed push on immigration reform at the federal level heating up, Greg Sargent summarized the larger political dynamic nicely: "By moving forward, Dems risk exacerbating the anger of the Tea Party brigade and alienating white swing voters, but they also energize a key portion of their base. The move also forces Republicans to choose between angering the Tea Partiers and alienating Latinos." This makes plenty of Republicans nervous. Democrats are well aware of this. As for Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has not yet said whether she'll approve of the bill, but she'll have to decide by tomorrow whether to sign it, veto it, or allow it to become law without her signature. Brewer is, however, facing a tough GOP primary, which makes it more likely she'll sign the anti-immigrant measure to satisfy the demands of the party's far-right base. What's more, criticism from President Obama might mean even more pressure on Brewer -- does she risk looking like she backed down in the face of White House pressure? —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
IN DEFENSE OF FACT-CHECKING, CONT'D.... The larger discussion about Sunday shows and fact-checking continues to percolate, and I'm delighted to see the concerns that originated with NYU professor Jay Rosen generate so much attention. We know that ABC's "This Week" is partnering with PolitiFact.com to check its content, and Jake Tapper has defended the idea. We also know that "Meet the Press" has declined, and David Gregory has said that viewers can fact-check the program "on their own terms." This week, Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation," weighed in, taking Gregory's side.
To be sure, the notion that the host is the first line of defense against false claims is compelling. When a guest says something that's not true, ideally the host would follow-up and make that clear to viewers. But the first line of defense often fails -- sometimes a host isn't aggressive enough; sometimes the host simply doesn't have the information at his or her fingertips to know that the guest isn't telling the truth. That said, Schieffer's take, like Gregory's, seems to miss the point of the exercise. About 2.3 million Americans tune in to watch "Face the Nation." Presumably, they watch to learn something about current events and public affairs. Schieffer asks questions, and we hear arguments from various political figures. If those 2.3 million Americans want to know if the arguments are accurate, why would Schieffer expect them to go figure it out on their own? If they trust "Face the Nation" and its host enough to tune in, shouldn't they also trust the program to separate fact and fiction? I suppose it's nice, in a way, to give the audience credit for being so sophisticated, they'll not only watch the interviews, but also have the wherewithal to do independent research to verify the accuracy of the claims. But realistically, a mainstream audience isn't well equipped to do its own analysis and fact-checking -- the public relies on professional news outlets to provide them with reliable information. Schieffer wants to give viewers the arguments, not the truth. At that point, the show itself becomes unnecessary -- we can all just read press releases and then scour the 'net to learn if the points are true. A couple of months ago, when this discussion began in earnest, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, host of his own CNN program on the media, talked to a guest who said online sites are adequate for fact-checking the newsmakers. Kurtz responded, "Exactly. And I'm saying why leave it entirely to the blogs? Why don't television producers and correspondents do it themselves?" That was in January. We haven't heard a good answer yet. Postscript: In related news, some interested students have launched "Meet the Facts" to fact-check "Meet the Press." Seems like a worthy endeavor. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
CONFUSION (STILL) REIGNS.... It's been about a month since the Affordable Care Act became law, and many political observers have been keeping an eye on the polls, watching to see if the breakthrough changed public perceptions. So far, there hasn't been much movement -- support has grown a bit, but opponents are still in the plurality. For Democrats, the hope has long been that success would start paying greater dividends when the public grew less confused about the details. That trend has yet to begin in earnest, though, because people are still confused about the details. The latest report from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of the ACA, while 40% have an unfavorable view. That's not bad, but the results are pretty partisan -- Dems like it, Republicans don't -- and the largest single group (30%) were those who have a "very unfavorable" view. Chris Cillizza noted, meanwhile, that the same problem that has undermined the debate for a year still exists: the public still doesn't understand the proposal or its merits.
Perhaps, but it also suggests the numbers are malleable. Many of the Americans who have a negative impression of the new law don't necessarily know what it is they don't like. More information -- and an effective sales job -- is likely to translate to more favorable opinions. Indeed, many of the benefits of the new that will kick in this year continue to be very popular.
This will continue to matter through the campaign season, as Democrats point to these benefits as the kind of provisions that need to be protected from Republicans who intend to repeal the entire legislative package. When it comes to the policy landscape, and health care policy in particular, eight in 10 Americans don't agree on much, but they're already on board with some of the new law's key measures. The more they become the focus of political debate, the better it is for Dems. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
DICK CHENEY'S GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT.... In 2004, a controversy over the Bush/Cheney administration and no-bid Halliburton contracts was just starting to grow, and Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), at the time the ranking Dem on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was pressing the issue. But when it came time for an annual group photo on the Senate floor, Leahy chose to be gracious, and approached then-Vice President Dick Cheney in a friendly, collegial manner. As the senator approached, Cheney told Leahy, "Go f*ck yourself." Instead of apologizing, Cheney ran off to Fox News soon after to boast about his classlessness, bragging about having "felt better after I had done it." Yesterday, Cheney appeared on a conservative talk-radio show, and continued to crow about his behavior. When the far-right host gushed about how much he "loved that move," the former V.P. replied:
Eight years running the executive branch, and one of Dick Cheney's greatest accomplishments was gutter-talk with a respected U.S. senator. Sounds about right. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
'BACK IN THE KITCHEN'.... When Republicans use sexism to go after Democratic women, there are varying degrees of subtlety. Late last year, for example, the National Republican Congressional Committee suggested House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be put "in her place" for disagreeing with an Army general about Afghanistan policy. The subtext seemed pretty obvious. But in northeast Ohio this week, the Republican Executive Committee in Medina County dropped the pretense altogether while going after Rep. Betty Sutton (D).
It's not just Emily's List that finds this offensive. It's the 21st century, for crying out loud. For Republicans to still talk about forcing women "back in the kitchen" should be insulting to anyone who takes equality seriously. For the record, Betty Sutton is an accomplished lawmaker and respected attorney -- and does not have a background as a professional chef. In other words, there's nothing about the congresswoman's background that makes "back in the kitchen" appropriate. The Republicans' rhetoric seems predicated entirely on gender. Medina County GOP Chairman Bill Heck said the mailing was sent to roughly 15,000 Republican households in Ohio, and he "had not received any complaints." He might think that makes this better. It actually makes it worse -- why don't those GOP households have a problem with this blatant misogyny? —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
REPUBLICANS QUIETLY HUDDLE WITH BANK LOBBYISTS (AGAIN).... Senate Republicans recently struggled to explain the propriety of GOP leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) huddling with hedge fund managers and Wall Street elites, strategizing on how best to kill financial regulatory reform. But as bad as that looked, yesterday was arguably even uglier.
The event was held at the headquarters of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and was ostensibly a fundraiser for Florida Sen. George LeMieux (R) -- who isn't seeking another term, and doesn't really need to be raising money. After the Sunlight Foundation obtained and posted the invitation to the gathering, a few outlets sent folks to cover the event. But senators, lobbyists, and assorted elites were not in a chatty mood -- attendees refused to answer questions, and all but one of the senators decided to not even use the front door. Evan McMorris-Santoro explained why they might have been embarrassed: "There's nothing new about politicians in Washington having closed-press meetings with lobbyists. There's not anything new about politicians fundraising at those meetings. But this event came at the exact moment Obama was taking on one of Washington's most powerful lobbies -- the financial industry -- on its home turf.... [W]hile Obama took on lobbyists, the GOP fed them." It's not exactly surprising, but there is an impressive shameless quality to the whole thing. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
April 22, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Things go from bad to worse on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform. * Better, but still too high: "First-time claims for jobless benefits fell last week, evidence that employers are laying off fewer workers. But claims remain too high to signal steady job creation." * Home sales "rose more than expected in March, reversing three months of declines." * Greece: "The Greek debt crisis escalated again Thursday as new data showed the government's gaping budget deficit was worse than previously thought and investors expressed fears that officials in Athens may not agree to stringent demands for an international bailout." * The Dems' Wall Street reform bill will reduce the budget deficit. * Iran: "In a matter of days, the United Nations will impose sanctions against Iran for illegally pursuing nuclear weapons, Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview Thursday." * Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) thinks tackling immigration reform "destroys the ability to do something like energy and climate." I suspect he might be right about this, though Stephen Stromberg touches on a related point about EPA action that's worth watching. * The latest summary of Sue Lowden's "Chickens for Checkups" controversy. * Does Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) have any proof to bolster his White House/SEC conspiracy theory? By his own admission, "No." * The Senate Budget Committee moves on this year's budget. * Did this morning's RNC piece from the Washington Times get the story right? Not necessarily. * Stephanie Cutter will oversee the White House's health care messaging strategy. Good move. * Is it me, or is DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano just plain likable? * Joe Conason explains why it matters that the U.S. is becoming more respected internationally in the Obama era. * That's even more than I would have guessed: "In recent years, at least 20 Fox News personalities have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances and in at least 49 states." * New rules about unpaid interns. * And Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) believes "trained professionals" can spot undocumented immigrants based on what they're wearing. Seriously. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
HARD TO IMAGINE.... The debate among the British candidates for prime minister is surprisingly captivating -- it's on right now, if you want to check it out -- and I was especially fascinated by a voter's question about an upcoming U.K. visit scheduled by Pope Benedict XVI. The voter wanted to know, given the pope's views on science, health, and diversity, and given the Vatican's scandal involving sexual abuse of children, would the three major-party candidates welcome the papal visit? All three candidates -- Conservative leader David Cameron, Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg, and incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- offered roughly the same response. They strongly disagree with the pope on social issues -- stem-cell research, contraception, gay rights -- and abhor the church's ongoing scandal, but would nevertheless welcome Benedict, out of respect for England's Catholic population and in deference to religious diversity. But the way Clegg began his answer was rather striking:
Now, it was amazing enough to hear all of the candidates clearly support a progressive (by U.S. standards) approach to social policy. But even more remarkable was watching a major party candidate feel entirely comfortable describing himself as not being a person of faith, knowing that this acknowledgement probably won't affect his electoral chances. It stands in pretty stark contrast to politics in the United States. —Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
REID TO GOP: I DARE YOU.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced this afternoon that "the games of stalling are over" when it comes to Wall Street reform. "I'm not going to waste any more time of the American people," he declared. And with that, the Senate leadership started the clock and scheduled its first procedural vote for 5:15 p.m. (ET) on Monday afternoon.
And what of the bipartisan talks that have made some progress this week? They'll continue -- and by most accounts, participants are optimistic -- but Reid isn't going to wait for them anymore. It's a bit of a gamble for the Democratic leadership. If a final deal is not in place on Monday afternoon, all 41 Senate Republicans may very well block the debate from getting underway. Of course, Dems don't necessarily see that as a bad result -- they'll use it against Republicans in the campaign, and then keep working until they get the legislation through the chamber. But Democrats seem to think it won't come to that anyway. Either the deadline will produce a completed deal, or a GOP senator or two may feel compelled to break ranks, vote to start the debate, and keep the process moving forward. Either way, Reid and the Democratic leadership seem to feel pretty confident right now, secure enough to effectively dare Republicans to stand in the way of the reform effort. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "We feel we have the upper hand." —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
FLORIDA REPUBLICANS REMINDED OF 'LOYALTY OATH'.... It appears increasingly likely that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will depart the Republican Senate primary and run for the vacant seat as an independent. Of course, as a sitting governor and life-long Republican, if Crist does make the jump, he'll probably try to convince some of his closest allies to stick with him. The Republican Party of Florida is anticipating this, and "making preparations" to remind its members that they don't really have a say in the matter -- if Crist isn't a GOP candidate, they're forbidden to endorse him.
I can appreciate party discipline as much as the next guy, and I've long been impressed by Republicans' efforts to keep members in line, but it's incredible to me that GOP officials in Florida are actually required to sign a loyalty oath. Isn't that just a little authoritarian for 21st-century America? According to a CNN report, the loyalty oath applies to all of the members of the State Republican Executive Committee, the County Executive Committees, and precinct committee members, as well every Florida Republican in Congress, all six GOP statewide officeholders, and Floridians on the Republican National Committee. The party of "freedom"? I don't think so. —Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
ROVE'S SUSPECT RELIABILITY ON PRIVACY RIGHTS.... Fox News personality Karl Rove chatted with Greta Van Susteren last night about Wall Street reform, which he's apparently skeptical of. In fact, the former Bush/Cheney aide appears to have some creative concerns that haven't exactly been at the heart of the larger legislative debate. (thanks to reader C.G. for the heads-up)
Rove added that he's concerned about "empowering an agency" of the government to "peer into" Americans' personal accounts "in order to do with it whatever they want to do." As a substantive matter, I haven't the foggiest idea what Rove is complaining about, but since this isn't even a concern raised by congressional Republicans -- who've been fabricating talking points as they go along -- I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Rove's claim isn't an especially credible one. If he has evidence to back this up, I'm all ears. But let's also note the irony -- Karl Rove is complaining about big government invading Americans' privacy. If memory serves, it was Rove's team that not only embraced and shaped the Patriot Act, but also created a system of warrantless wiretaps with no oversight or accountability. If there are legitimate concerns about personal privacy and monitoring of financial transactions, let's hear them. But given Karl Rove's track record, and his general disregard for reality, perhaps he's not the best spokesperson to be raising these questions. —Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... By now, the pattern should be rather familiar: policymakers identify an issue in urgent need of attention; Democrats propose a worthwhile solution; Republicans balk; and President Obama delivers a big, high-profile speech to put things right. With this in mind, the president was in New York City earlier, speaking from Cooper Union about the need to bring safeguards and accountability to a financial industry that nearly destroyed the global economy. It was less a stirring address and more a prosecutor's closing argument. Treating financiers like a skeptical jury, the president urged Wall Street to change course: "[Pending proposals] represent significant improvement on the flawed rules we have in place today, despite the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape them to their special interests. I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector." Obama also took a moment to defend his commitment to the free market, though he added, "a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it." But it was a quote from a magazine article that was perhaps the most memorable aspect of the remarks:
It's funny, in a way -- hysterical conservatives offer the same shrieks, generation after generation, and with the benefit of hindsight, they always look ridiculous. Nevertheless, there's been a fair amount of progress in the Senate of late, and success appears all but inevitable. Here's hoping the president sealed the deal. —Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
MAYBE IT'S UN-SPINNABLE.... As Sue Lowden's "bring a chicken to the doctor" vision of health care delivery gained national notoriety yesterday, I couldn't help but wonder just how much trouble the Republican Senate candidate in Nevada is in. Lowden is, after all, still introducing herself to voters, and she has a primary opponent who can step up if Lowden's support evaporates. Would the National Republican Senatorial Committee, desperate to beat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in November, cut their losses on Sue Lowden now, before it gets worse? Apparently not -- at least not yet. Eric Kleefeld talked to NRSC communications director Brian Walsh, who seems to think Lowden's bizarre understanding of health care policy is Harry Reid's fault:
I'm not entirely sure what this means. Reid didn't "inject farm animals" into the race; Lowden talked publicly about patients compensating medical professionals with livestock. Given a chance to walk it back, Lowden and her campaign kept repeating the line. It's "a bit pathetic" to notice that Sue Lowden, after a year on the campaign trail, seeking an important statewide office, appears to have no idea what she's talking about? As a rule, Brian Walsh and the NRSC can spin just about anything. After seeing yesterday's response, I'm beginning to think "bring a chicken to the doctor" might be un-spinnable. In the mean time, the Lowden campaign is promoting a letter to the editor published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, ostensibly written by a family physician in a rural part of Nevada. She insists she's traded professional medical services for "alfalfa hay, a bath tub, yard work and horse shoeing." What the campaign (and the letter) neglects to mention is that the doctor is also a prominent Republican activist who -- wouldn't you know it -- also ran against Harry Reid. Republican efforts notwithstanding, the story is continuing to make the rounds. Jay Leno mocked Lowden during his monologue last night, and MSNBC's "Countdown" and "The Rachel Maddow Show" had good segments on this last night. It's starting to look un-spinnable. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (62)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Hoping to wrap the primary race up once and for all, Dick Cheney this morning threw his support to Marco Rubio in Florida's Senate race. The former V.P. took plenty of not-so-subtle shots at Rubio's Republican opponent and one-time frontrunner, Gov. Charlie Crist. * On a related note, Rasmussen shows Rubio leading in a hypothetical, three-way match-up, with 37% support. Crist is second in the poll with 30%, and Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) is third with 22%. * And while Florida's Senate field may be poised to shrink on the GOP side, it may be poised to grow on the Democratic side. Billionaire real estate developer and financier Jeff Greene, listed by Forbes as one of the richest people in the world, is thinking about taking on Rep. Kendrick Meek in a Democratic primary. * In California, the latest Rasmussen poll shows state AG Jerry Brown (D) out in front over Meg Whitman (R) in the gubernatorial race, 44% to 38%. * The DSCC still has high hopes for former North Carolina state Sen. Cal Cunningham in his potential bid against Sen. Richard Burr (R), but Cunningham appears to be struggling to fill his campaign coffers with the donations he'll need. * On a related note, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, one of the two top Democratic candidates running for the Senate this year, is in even worse financial shape, and ended the first quarter with only $79,000 in the bank. Her primary opponent, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, has $1.8 million in cash on hand. * And scandal-plagued Republican Sen. John Ensign (R) isn't up for re-election until 2012, but like all senators, he's expected to keep raising money for the next race. In the first quarter of 2010, the humiliated far-right lawmaker raised just $50 -- no, that's not a typo -- which came from one guy. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
CHOOSING BETWEEN IMMIGRATION AND CLIMATE.... We talked yesterday about the crowded legislative calendar lawmakers are facing before the midterm elections. Wall Street reform, obviously, is the current fight, but there are still two more major proposals -- immigration reform and a climate/energy bill -- that Democrats would love to tackle before the end of the 111th Congress. But what if there's only time for one? Democratic leaders appear to have prioritized one over the other.
Aides later emphasized that the discussion between the leaders wasn't necessarily about tackling one issue and neglecting the other. "The conversation was really about timing, not an either-or kind of thing, but timing," one staffer said. I've seen nothing to contradict this, and Pelosi and Reid would no doubt love to complete work on both. But there's also a realization that, with time running out, it may come down to one or the other. In this case, that means tackling immigration, and putting off climate/energy for another day. There are multiple angles to keep in mind here. First, note that the climate bill has already passed the House, and is awaiting Senate action, while neither chamber has moved on immigration thus far. It makes it the lift that much more challenging. Second, remember that completing a climate bill in the future will be extremely difficult, since Republicans will almost certainly make significant gains in the midterms, and much of the party considers climate science some kind of nefarious plot cooked up by communists. If the bill dies this year, after having already passed the House, we may not see another vote on the issue at all until 2013, at the earliest. —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
THE NEW $100.... How predictable have conservatives become? Just 24 hours ago, DougJ made a prediction: "I'm pretty sure that the new $100 bills will produce some kind of wingnut freakout. The most obvious angle is, 'They look like European money!'" Right on cue, Drudge came through:
A couple of things. First, the new $100 bill doesn't look like a Euro, not that there's anything wrong with the appearance of Euros anyway. Second, the design for the new $100 bill was adopted -- you guessed it -- during the Bush/Cheney administration. It was supposed to go into circulation in 2008, but was delayed "to give the government time to refine all the new security features." Add this to the list of steps the Republican administration took to make us more "European." —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)
CALLING OUT THOSE WHO GOT US INTO THE DITCH.... E.J. Dionne Jr. had a good column today on President Obama's visit to California this week to help Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) raise some funds for her re-election bid. As Dionne noted, the fact that Boxer even needs the help is a discouraging sign for Democrats. But Dionne also noted that there's some growing evidence that the president and other Dems may be able to go on the offensive as the campaign season heats up. He added that he saw the president hint at a campaign theme.
If this sounds vaguely familiar, it's because the president sounded a similar note -- at a California fundraiser, no less -- last October. "When I'm busy and Nancy's busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else's mess, we don't want somebody sitting back saying, 'You're not holding the mop the right way,'" he said at the time. "Why don't you grab a mop? Why don't you help clean up?" It's the kind of message the president may want to use more often, and in venues other than just party fundraisers. In the abstract, the Republican message of the last two years is almost hard to believe: they left a series of extraordinary crises for Democrats to address, refused to help address those crises, blocked Democratic efforts to put things right, and now want voters to give them the power to go back to the policies that created the crises in the first place. If the president's remarks are indicative of the message we're likely to hear the rest of the year, Dems have a reasonably good pitch. If voters decide they're not happy with the way Democrats pulled the car out of the ditch that Republicans drove into, it may not matter, but at least the message is there for voters to consider. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
RNC HQ, STILL IN DISARRAY.... As if RNC Chairman Michael Steele's latest gaffes weren't enough to give his party heartburn, we're also learning this week that management of the Republican National Committee's finances is a complete mess.
Many RNC donors were severely annoyed to learn that party funds were used at that bondage-themed nightclub earlier this year, but that was about $2,000. Party officials could at least tell supporters that it was an isolated incident involving a fairly small amount of money, which the RNC reportedly got back. But the message to RNC donors is far more difficult when the problems appear systemic. It's quite an operation Michael Steele is running, isn't it? Given what we've seen of late, I still find it hard to imagine the party would oust Steele. He's survived this long, despite extraordinary incompetence, and with the midterms less than seven months away, I doubt the RNC would move towards a major shake-up now. But if the elections in November fall short of party expectations, don't be surprised if Steele and "questionable financial management and oversight" at the RNC gets much of the blame. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
STEELE ACCIDENTALLY TELLS THE TRUTH.... It took a little while, but the recent turmoil that rocked the Republican National Committee subsided. In the wake of the lesbian-bondage-related unpleasantness, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was weakened; the party parted ways with key staffers; and donors recoiled, but the storm eventually blew over. Now, Steele can get back to business, and get beyond damaging distractions, right? Well, not just yet.
Now, Steele's assessment happens to be accurate. Has the Republican Party given African-American voters a reason to support its candidates? By any reasonable measure, no. But the head of the RNC isn't supposed to make these kinds of concessions publicly. Put it this way: what does House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) say today when a reporter asks, "The chairman of the Republican National Committee believes African Americans 'really don't have a reason' to support GOP candidates. Do you agree?" Indeed, if DNC Chairman Tim Kaine had made the same remarks, Republicans would be throwing a fit, accusing Kaine of using racially divisive language and playing the "race card." It's tougher to go ballistic when it's their own party leader. Making matters worse, Steele is compounding earlier gaffes on this front. Remember, it was just six months ago when the RNC chair conceded that some Republicans are afraid of him because he's black. There were some in the party who believed last year that picking Steele for the RNC job might help the party with minority outreach. Somehow, I suspect those who thought this was a good idea are less sure of this strategy now. Postscript: From the same event in Chicago: "A student whose family had to move into a smaller house after spending $250,000 on heart surgeries for the student asked Steele what he would do to bring down health costs. Steele said tort reform would help." Steele is about as competent talking about health care policy as he is talking about race. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY BITES THE DUST.... Late last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against Goldman Sachs, alleging fraud. Congressional Republicans and their allies aren't exactly defending the Wall Street powerhouse, but they're complaining about the timing. Starting Monday, the conservative line took shape -- the Obama administration went after Goldman to make Wall Street look bad, which in turn might help generate support for the financial regulatory reform bill pending in the Senate. The right has trumpeted the argument all week. On its face, the conspiracy theory is pretty silly. Putting aside the fact that there's literally zero evidence that political considerations influenced the SEC move, it's also worth keeping in mind that the fraud investigation began before President Obama even took office. What's more, the SEC warned Goldman nine months ago that charges were likely, and SEC officials could not have known last July the probe might have a political impact now. But the Republican Attack Machine keeps repeating the claim, which means major media outlets keep spreading the nonsense. It led SEC chair Mary Shapiro and President Obama to both categorically dismiss the conspiracy theory as baseless. But wait, conservatives say, there might be proof. Apparently, the DNC bought Google ads related to Goldman Sachs and the fraud allegations the same day as the SEC filing. Maybe, Republicans argue, the DNC had advance notice, which would prove coordination and bolster the political conspiracy. Except that's wrong, too.
In other words, Republicans have spent a week pushing a ridiculous conspiracy theory with no foundation in reality, and the media played along. It wasn't the first time, and it probably won't be the last. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
April 21, 2010
WEDNSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * When Senate Republicans block votes on Obama administration nominees, it's routine. When Senate Republicans block votes on about 100 Obama administration nominees, all on the same day, it's a reminder of how just absurd the GOP's obstructionism can be. * No, the president didn't intervene to sic the SEC on Goldman Sachs. * On a related note, the new, far-right conspiracy theory about Goldman, the DNC, and Google really doesn't make sense. * The administration was thrilled: "General Motors Co. has repaid the $8.1 billion in loans it got from the U.S. and Canadian governments, a move its CEO says is a sign automaker is on the road to recovery. GM CEO Whitacre announced the loan paybacks Wednesday at the company's Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kan., where he said GM is investing $257 million in that factory and the Detroit-Hamtramck plant, both of which will build the next generation of the midsize Chevrolet Malibu." * Bold approach: "Sens. Sherrod Brown (right), Ted Kaufman, Robert Casey and Sheldon Whitehouse are introducing a new financial-reform bill, the Safe Banking Act of 2010, to limit the size of the banks -- and, in the process, break up existing firms." * Rescind that invitation: "The Army is considering whether to rescind an invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to appear at the Pentagon amid complaints about his description of Islam as evil, a military spokesman said Wednesday." * American women are now apparently outpacing American men in higher education achievement. And yet, women still earn less than men. * This NYT op-ed on anti-trust policy provides further support for the thesis of the Monthly's latest cover story. * As it turns out, there really are some unhinged nutjobs in the House Republican caucus. * On a related note, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) forgets that it's best to read magazine articles before condemning them. * Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) changes his story a bit on illegal immigrants deliberately causing auto accidents. * I haven't seen RNC Chairman Michael Steele popping off as much lately, but he's back today, lying about Wall Street reform. Can he go back into hiding now? * And finally, the Embassy of Kenya will throw a real tea party on Capitol Hill next week, celebrating Kenya's new status as the world's top exporter of tea. I don't imagine Dick Armey and Fox News will be there. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
WHAT SHIFTED THE MOMENTUM ON WALL STREET REFORM?.... After some unpleasant chest-pounding last week, the fate of Wall Street reform looked shaky as recently as Monday afternoon. Yesterday, however, there was evidence of real progress, and today Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a leading negotiator on the bill, acknowledged, "We're very close to a deal and there will be a substantial number of Republicans that go along with it." So, what's behind all this progress? Brian Beutler and Christina Bellantoni explained that Republican senators weren't prepared to walk off a cliff on this one.
In other words, Dems' expectations were actually correct on this one. Evidence that the GOP is "softening its opposition" to financial regulatory reform is apparent in more than just rhetoric and renewed negotiations. The Senate Agriculture Committee voted this afternoon, for example, to approve Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D-Ark.) aggressive measure to tighten regulation of derivatives trading. In an unexpected development, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) voted with Democrats in support of the proposal, further evidence that the GOP is no longer marching in lock-step when it comes to bringing new safeguards to Wall Street. —Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
LOWDEN TRIPLES DOWN.... I really didn't intend to do three posts about this today, but Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden keeps pressing her cluck, I mean, luck. To briefly review, Lowden, the favorite to beat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in Nevada this year, recently encouraged voters to "barter with your doctor." On Monday, Lowden reiterated and expanded upon this, praising a health care delivery system in line with "the olden days" when those seeking medical care "would bring a chicken to the doctor." Despite the mockery this had already received, she added, "I'm not backing down from that system." This afternoon, the Republican candidate's spokesperson told Greg Sargent that the campaign is sticking by Lowden's argument.
The campaign's statement went on to blame Harry Reid because, well, just because. There are a couple of angles to consider here. First, when Lowden's spokesperson says bartering "is not a new concept," that's true. But as Atrios explained, "All joking aside, there's a reason we no longer have a barter economy. It's tremendously inefficient." Second, the Lowden campaign went on to distribute some kind of background document, hoping to prove that bargaining with medical professionals is possible. But as we've talked about, haggling with doctors is hardly the basis for effective care and cost controls, and for that matter, bargaining and bartering aren't the same thing. In a purely political context, campaigns are rarely lost in April, but Lowden's position has quickly made her something of a joke -- and once a candidate is a laughingstock, it's very difficult to recover. One Nevadan has characterized this as a "macaca moment" for the Republican hopeful, and that under the circumstances, that seems more than fair. Sue Lowden could have walked this embarrassing incident back many times, but she's now tripled down on a position that simply doesn't make any sense. Lowden has had a year to come up with a coherent approach to health care policy, and she's failed rather spectacularly. We saw our first hint about this last month, when Lowden praised Medicare and condemned "government run health care" at the same time, and we're getting an even better sense of her confusion now. Sometimes, candidates just aren't ready for prime time. —Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (69)
ODD SILENCE FROM A LOUD BUNCH.... How Wall Street operates would seem to be of interest to the Tea Party crowd. After all, this is a matter at the core of many of their ostensible concerns -- powerful elites, acting irresponsibly, ignoring the needs of the American mainstream, generating devastating consequences for everyone. The legislative fight over reforming Wall Street, then, should be of great interest to the so-called "movement." But as Benjy Sarlin explained, Tea Partiers seem to be taking a pass on the major legislative fight of the day.
What an interesting response. The Tea Party crowd didn't study the health care bill, but the activists opposed it. They didn't study tax policy, but they're still whining incessantly about tax increases that haven't happened. They didn't study budget policy, but they still think Obama is responsible for huge deficits (he's not). But when it comes time to bring some accountability to a financial industry that pushed the global economy to the brink, Armey and his band of confused followers "haven't had a chance to study it"? Since when does that matter? Steve M. takes a compelling stab at explaining what's up: —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT AUDIENCE SOPHISTICATION.... There have been a few entertaining exchanges of late between "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart and Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg, but there was something the conservative media critic said last night that seemed especially noteworthy. It started when Goldberg and other Fox News personalities started over-generalizing about what liberals think, after having complained about the way liberals over-generalize. It prompted Stewart to tell Fox News, "Go f*ck yourselves." This wasn't well received at Fox News HQ, and led to a discussion between Goldberg and Bill O'Reilly. Goldberg conceded that Stewart had a point about over-generalizing, but proceeded to go after "The Daily Show" host anyway. Responding directly to Stewart, Goldberg said, speaking into the camera:
Stewart's response is well worth watching -- I've included the video below -- and I was especially pleased to hear him explain, "I know that I criticize you and Fox News a lot, but only because you're truly a terrible, cynical, disingenuous news organization." Stewart also noted the contradiction underscoring the criticism of his audience -- Goldberg thinks "Daily Show" viewers are "elites" and "unsophisticated" at the same time? But there's a related point I wanted to emphasize that Stewart didn't mention. In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey found that Fox News viewers were the most confused about current events, while viewers of "The Daily Show" were among the best informed news consumers in the country. Comedy Central, relying on data from Nielsen Media Research, also found that Stewart's audience not only knew more about current events, but were far better educated than Bill O'Reilly's audience. Three years later, the Pew Research Study published a report showing that "viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last." Bernie Goldberg, if you want to talk about "incredibly unsophisticated audiences," we can talk about incredibly unsophisticated audiences.
REPETITION, REPETITION, REPETITION.... Republican leaders, taking their cues from a pollster's strategy memo, began trying to characterize the Wall Street reform as a "bailout" bill. It's obvious the argument was a lie. It was equally obvious the GOP didn't care. As I noted the day after Mitch McConnell started pushing it, the lie doesn't have to make sense; it doesn't have to withstand scrutiny; it doesn't even have to be persuasive. It just has to be repeated enough to muddle the debate. With that in mind, consider the remarks made this morning by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Republican Conference. See if you can pick up on the theme.
The transparency of the lie is arguably the most galling aspect. Pence, like McConnell, is lying. But what's almost impressive about it is the shamelessness -- everyone, including Pence, already knows the claim is demonstrably wrong, but he's decided this is no time for pesky details like facts. There's an argument to win. Pence is no doubt aware that fact-check pieces will expose his argument as ridiculous, but he's willing to take that risk. His base won't mind, and the media probably won't call him on it anyway. What's more, Matt Yglesias thinks it's a strategy that will likely prove to be effective.
Which, in a nutshell, is why our political discourse can be so mind-numbing -- Republicans believe they have an incentive to lie with impunity. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
DEMINT SEES 'SPIRITUAL RENEWAL'.... Over the last year or so, there's been a simmering tension between conservative factions. So-called culture warriors and religious right groups, once the sole basis for the Republican Party's activist base, are starting to get pushed aside. Their issues, which the GOP pretended to care deeply about, no longer get much in the way of lip-service. What matters, according to Republicans, is the Tea Party crowd. CBN's David Brody asked Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) about this, and it prompted an interesting exchange.
That's a nice try, I suppose, but I'd be surprised if even DeMint actually believed this. Social conservatives have been watching the Tea Party gatherings, and they've noticed that the issues at their top of their priority list -- hating gays, banning abortion, and getting government support for their religion -- aren't just downplayed; they're deliberately ignored. After all, the religious right's agenda alienates those who may be sympathetic to a far-right approach to economics. Bryan Fischer, a right-wing analyst for the American Family Association, recently said, "There's a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative. The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage." Conservatives are going to have to figure this out eventually. One side wants smaller government in all instances; the other wants bigger government on issues related to gays, abortion, religion, and marriage. DeMint sees a movement built around spirituality. Do the Tea Partiers agree? —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In the major parties' first quarter fundraising totals, both the DCCC and the DSCC outraised their Republican counterparts. The Democratic committees also have more cash on hand than the NRCC and NRSC. * Meanwhile, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) declared yesterday that making gains in this year's midterms isn't enough to constitute success. "Anything less" than a Republican majority, Sessions said, would mean he fell short of his "mission statement." * With the winds continuing to shift in Florida, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said this morning he won't support Charlie Crist's Senate campaign under any circumstances. * Dave Weigel "got an early look at a survey of state GOP delegates conducted by a Utah firm" yesterday, and it appears that incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) is in very deep trouble this year. It's conceivable that Bennett will lose so badly at the state Republican convention in two weeks, there won't even be a primary. * On a related note, however, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) hopes to try to rescue Bennett. * With the special election in Hawaii's first congressional district coming up next week, the DCCC has decided to go after Republican candidate Charles Djou. Dems fear a loss in this race is a real possibility, because it's a three-way contest -- two Democrats against one Republican. * In New Hampshire, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows former state AG Kelly Ayotte (R) leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D) in this year's open Senate race, 47% to 40%. * Ben Quayle is running for Congress in Arizona, and it appears fundraising won't be a problem -- his former V.P. father is lining up establishment friends to cut big checks for the first-time candidate. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
CHICKENS FOR CHECKUPS.... This week, Sue Lowden (R), the leading Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, reiterated her odd beliefs about the health care system. "I'm telling you that this works," she explained. "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor.... Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system." Greg Sargent reports that the DSCC is launching a new website today -- called "Chickens for Checkups" -- lampooning the conservative Republican candidate for her ridiculous approach to health policy.
I can never guess correctly what'll become a big story -- why so much of the media is leaving John Ensign alone is still a mystery to me -- but Lowden the Laughingstock seems like it has legs (or wings, as the case may be). High-profile candidates for statewide office just don't offer their opponents this kind of opportunity very often. With Nevada's leading GOP candidate describing a livestock-for-care dynamic, Democrats have been handed an even more delightful gift than the RNC spending donor money at a bondage-themed nightclub. I still think there's a potential for national significance, too, if other Republican officials and candidates are asked whether they agree with Sue Lowden's "bring a chicken to the doctor" health care plan. Either way, though, Dems aren't hesitating to pounce on this one. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)
READY FOR MORE RECONCILIATION?.... Budget reconciliation rules have been around for a while, but never came to the public's attention in earnest until this year -- when Republicans decided the legislative procedure is somehow controversial, despite all the times they used it when they were in the majority. And while the fight over health care reform wrapped up last month, reconciliation talk isn't quite finished yet.
What a good point -- reconciliation can be used in "many different areas." The reference to energy legislation wasn't a direct quote from Cardin, and as far as I can tell, this is the first time the notion of using reconciliation for the energy bill has been raised in earnest by a senator. Here's hoping it's not the last. Jon Chait added, "[A]s the Congressional session winds down, reconciliation is going to be the biggest weapon left in the Democrats' arsenal. It will be interesting to see how they deploy it." It will, indeed. Given all the things Dems might want to do before the end of this Congress, reconciliation may prove to make the difference between success and disappointment. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
A CROWDED CALENDAR.... Wall Street reform is obviously up front and center on the Hill right now, and will be the dominant legislative issue of the day until is passes. But with the bill's prospects looking up, policymakers are already wondering what else they can get done in 2010. Last week, President Obama told a group of high-profile business leaders that a climate/energy bill is up next in the Senate. Yesterday, the president signaled an intention to tackle yet another major legislative initiative around the same time.
In terms of the timeline, Brown told the WSJ that the president apparently intends to move forward with an immigration overhaul "in a month." It's encouraging that the effort is coming into focus, not only for substantive and policy reasons, but also because it suggests Democratic leaders aren't shying away from ambition. There's not that much time left in this Congress -- there's a summer recess coming up, and lawmakers will want to get on the campaign trail as quickly as possible in the early fall -- and Wall Street reform, the budget, a climate/energy bill, and immigration reform, it's hard to believe Dems will able to check so many items off their to-do list, especially in the face of reflexive Republican opposition to everything. But the agenda is worth pursuing. Not only is it likely that voters will be impressed with a do-something Congress, but chances are, real policymaking in the next Congress will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Tackling as much as possible, as quickly as possible, is wise. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS TAKE AN INTEREST IN FLORIDA GOP, RUBIO.... When considering the states where political corruption is common, Florida should rank pretty high. New federal investigations are likely to help solidify that reputation.
A source familiar with the IRS probe told the Miami Herald that investigators are not yet sure whether a full-fledged criminal probe into Rubio's credit card use is warranted, but there's enough there to look into it. While Rubio was legally permitted to use GOP credit cards on party-related expenses, the far-right former House Speaker had charges that included "repairs to the family minivan, grocery bills, plane tickets for his wife, and purchases from retailers ranging from a wine store near his home to Apple's on-line store." Rubio is, of course, currently the leading Republican Senate candidate. As a rule, federal investigations during a political campaign are inconvenient -- voters are sometimes skeptical about backing suspected criminals -- but for all I know, Florida GOP primary voters may believe that laws have a well-known liberal bias. That said, headlines such as "Rubio under federal investigation" are the kind of developments that might influence Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign plans, and for that matter, give hope to Florida Democrats who still think Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) might surprise some people. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
NOT A GOOD WEEK IN ARIZONA.... The Grand Canyon State appears to have fallen in a deep political hole. Less than a week ago, the state Senate in Arizona approved an odious immigration measure, which, among other things, makes it a crime to lack proper immigration paperwork in the state, and "requires police officers, if they form a 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status." Arizonans would be eligible for arrest if an officer thinks they might be an illegal immigrant and can't prove otherwise. Yesterday, the far-right push took another ugly turn, with Arizona's state House advancing a "birther" bill.
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, a Republican, isn't sure if the proposal is even legal, since state-level requirements for a federal office are inherently suspect. But substance aside, the fact that fringe lunacy is being taken seriously at this level suggests a strain of contemporary Republican thought that's gone stark raving mad. For what it's worth, this nonsense still has some major hurdles to clear before becoming law in Arizona. The state House voted to add the measure to another piece of legislation yesterday, and is yet to formally approve it. The "birther" bill would also still need support from the state Senate and Gov. Jan Brewer (R). Nevertheless, the effort itself, and its progress, is an embarrassment. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
'BRING A CHICKEN TO THE DOCTOR'.... Sue Lowden (R), the leading Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, recently articulated her vision of how the American health care system should work. At a local candidate forum, Lowden, a former state senator and chair of the Nevada Republican Party, encouraged Nevadans to "go ahead and barter with your doctor." It would, she insisted, "get get prices down in a hurry." I assumed that Lowden misspoke, and meant to say "bargain," not "barter," though the notion of bargaining with medical professionals is itself foolish. But she couldn't have meant "barter," since that's ridiculous. I stand corrected. Lowden appeared on a Nevada news program earlier this week, and doubled down on her notion of a more effective system. "I'm telling you that this works," the Republican candidate explained. "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say, 'I'll paint your house.' I mean, that's the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system." This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from a candidate for statewide office. If there wasn't a video, I might not even believe it. According to nearly every recent poll, Lowden is the clear favorite to defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in November, but that was before she started talking about trading livestock for medical care. It's a permanent credibility-killer. It's one thing to be a confused, far-right candidate. It's another to be a laughingstock. Remember, the health care debate lasted a very long time. Lowden, who has been running for the Senate for nearly as long, has had plenty of time to carefully craft her message on health care policy. This is what she's come up with. Better yet, after becoming the subject of ridicule last week, Lowden had a chance to clarify this into a position that's less preposterous. Instead, she made it worse. I'm trying to imagine how Lowden thinks this should work. Treating a mundane ailment -- say, a sore throat -- can cost a chicken. But how, exactly, does she imagine families pay for more serious treatments? What should Nevadans expect to bring to the doctor in exchange for an MRI exam? Or an emergency appendectomy? Or chemotherapy? Should the senior citizen who just had hip-replacement surgery offer to start painting the doctor's house? If Dems are smart, they'll start taking this national -- ask every Republican candidate in the country whether they agree with Sue Lowden's "bring a chicken to the doctor" health care plan. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (100)
April 20, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Key 8-1 ruling: "The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech." * An argument over gun rights led to this major disappointment: "In a stunning reversal, Democratic leaders have decided that the House of Representatives won't consider a bill that would have given the District of Columbia full voting rights in Congress. 'The price was way too high,' explained House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., in announcing the decision Tuesday." * Another good move from the administration: "Surrounded by women athletes and Olympians Vice President Biden announced today that the Obama administration is rolling back a controversial Title IX compliance requirement enacted under the Bush administration. 'Making Title IX as strong as possible is a no-brainer,' Biden said this afternoon at an event at George Washington University." * The right fought vehemently in opposition to Marisa Demeo, a President Obama nominee to the D.C. Superior Court, primarily because she's a lesbian. After waiting for 13 months for a vote, the Senate ended a Republican filibuster today. * Any chance the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland might help with global warming? It's not likely. * Donald Berwick, the new Medicare/Medicaid chief, looks like a fine choice. * In case Fox News is too liberal for you, there may soon be an even more ridiculous option: RightNetwork. The guy who played Frasier is apparently involved. * Glenn Beck is claiming to hear voices in his head. * R.I.P, Dr. Dorothy Height. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
SIGNS OF PROGRESS ON WALL STREET REFORM?.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had taken the lead in trying to kill Wall Street reform. Today, on the Senate floor, he struck a less antagonistic tone, and there were signs of possible progress.
McConnell also told reporters today, "We believe the process to achieve [a bipartisan bill] has now been reconstituted. We are all confident that this can be fixed... Senator Shelby [the Republicans' chief financial reform negotiator] believes that there's been a very serious effort to re-engage." McConnell said the progress is the result of his threats and the letter with 41 Republican signatures vowing to unanimously oppose the legislation. Democrats are suggesting the progress is the result of a) McConnell struggling to keep his caucus united; b) bad press after McConnell was caught blatantly lying; c) bad press after the secretive trip to Wall Street by GOP leaders; or d) some combination of all of them. Whatever. The point is, the effort appears, at least for now, to be gaining some ground in the Senate. In fact, Sam Stein reports that Republican Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), the ranking member on the Banking Committee, said negotiations "have progressed to the point that the debate now centers on specific language rather than individual proposals." While McConnell specifically said just 48 hours ago that he wants to see senators "go back to the drawing board" on crafting the legislation, Shelby said, "We are not going back to the drawing board. I have said all along that we are probably conceptually together on -- I've even said -- 85 percent... Now we are getting down to words and phrases." If recent history is any guide, Republicans may very well be jerking Democrats around (again), and will decide to reject the proposal in its entirety after the latest round of talks, no matter what Dems offer in good faith. But, at least for today, there's evidence of some progress. —Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
WHAT'S WITH THE GOP AND MICROCHIPS?.... This report, from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jim Galloway, is disconcerting on its face, but it also raises questions about the larger connection between conservatives and their microchip-related concerns. Last week, the Georgia House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to consider a Republican proposal to "prohibit the involuntary implantation of microchips in human beings." I'm not entirely sure what the point is -- it's not as if there's been an outbreak of involuntary microchip implantation -- but GOP officials nationwide have a tendency to worry about imaginary threats, so I suppose this shouldn't be too surprising. The legislative hearing led to remarks from a local woman, who claimed to have personal experience on the matter.
When a lawmaker asked her to clarify as to whether she's been implanted with a microchip, the woman said that she did, and that it was involuntarily put in her body by the U.S. Department of Defense. The state lawmakers politely thanked the woman for her time, and proceeded to vote in support of the proposal. And that's really the point I'm curious about. We talked in February about an identical effort among Republicans in Virginia's House of Delegates, where a GOP lawmaker sought to prohibit involuntary microchip implantation in order to help save humanity from the antichrist. His proposal passed. Indeed, there are now three states -- and counting -- that have instituted bans on involuntary microchip implantation. Georgia will likely become the fourth. At the same time, some conservatives are apparently concerned about non-existent microchip-related provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Was there some kind of memo about the dangers of microchips at some point? Where did all of these concerns come from? I like to think I keep up fairly well on far-right rhetoric, but all of this seems to be popping up around the same time, out of the blue. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (74)
EVEN LINDSEY GRAHAM DOESN'T DESERVE THIS.... I'm not generally in the habit of defending Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but some of the abuse he's been receiving from the right is ridiculous. Over the weekend, an even-crazier-than-usual Tea Party event was held in Greenville, South Carolina, and it was, by one account, "probably the craziest, most violence-strewn Tea Party event so far." Put it this way: former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) was the keynote speaker, and he called on Americans to send President Obama "back" to Kenya. He was preceded by a Baptist preacher who said he's prepared to "suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what [the military] trained me to do." But it was William Gheen, the head of a right-wing, anti-immigrant effort called Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, whose remarks were especially ugly. Lindsey Graham wasn't on hand for the event, but Gheen addressed the senator directly: "I'm a tolerant person. I don't care about your private life, Lindsey, but as our U.S. Senator I need to figure out why you're trying to sell out your own countrymen, and I need to make sure you being gay isn't it." Today, Gheen's outfit doubled down.
The "manipulated" line is especially inane -- as the group sees it, if Graham is trying to work constructively with Democrats on a handful of issues, it may be because Dems are blackmailing him. For the record, I neither know nor care about Graham's private life. His sexual orientation is irrelevant -- and the attacks are pathetic in either case. —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.... The Wall Street reform package pending on the Hill is not without flaws. Indeed, some of those flaws are pretty important, and deserve scrutiny before additional votes. We'd all benefit quite a bit from a thorough, substantive debate over the legislation's strengths and weaknesses. But we can't have that debate. Republicans have come up with one big lie, which they already know isn't true, and the effort to deal with this one big lie has made the real debate impossible. At his pollster's urging, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last week started popping off about the legislation being a "bailout" bill. He was lying. But as is usually the case, other far-right lawmakers are following instructions, and repeating the lie anyway. Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the Senate bill "would empower the federal government to provide Wall Street with permanent bailouts, courtesy of American taxpayers." He's lying, too. No one seems capable of defending this truly pathetic claim, and one conservative senator is even willing to concede that he knows his party's argument is plainly false. Here's Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) yesterday, describing the liquidation-fund provision:
But it doesn't matter. Corker's party just doesn't care. And just to add insult to injury, GOP leaders signaled today that even if the perfectly reasonable idea they're lying about is scuttled, they'll not only still oppose the bill, they'll also "still denounce the bill for including an unlimited bailout." Got that? Republicans will shamelessly lie about a provision in an important bill. Confronted with reality, they'll still lie. And even if the provision disappears, they'll still tell the same lie. What's the point of even having a public discourse when the leadership of a political party treats the truth like a punch-line? Now would be a terrific time for a real debate. Republicans could -- get this -- raise legitimate objections to the legislation, and raise concerns that -- believe it or not -- are entirely sensible. But, no. We can't have real debates because we're too busy suffering through idiotic mendacity. Note to Republican leaders: liars become pathological when the truth works just as well, but you actually prefer dishonesty. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
IF EVERY PICK WILL PRODUCE A TANTRUM.... There's still plenty of scuttlebutt about the direction President Obama will choose when picking the next Supreme Court nominee. Will he "pick a fight," selecting a solid progressive, or focus more on trying to find a "consensus" nominee who'd be easier to confirm? The latter approach appears to be based on a faulty assumption -- that there are a significant number of Senate Republicans who'll be reasonable about the confirmation process. It's a dynamic the White House seems well aware of. Christina Bellantoni had a good report on this.
That's a safe bet. I don't believe Republicans would be able to block an up-or-down vote on the nominee, but it seems like a near-certainty that conservatives will throw a tantrum under every possible scenario. National Review recently went so far yesterday as to call on Republicans to resist the eventual nominee, no matter who's selected. Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton told Bellantoni that his far-right group already objects to all of the names on the purported short-list. So, why make the selection based on a bipartisan "consensus" that won't materialize anyway? If a mainstream, center-left jurist will be labeled a "wild-eyed liberal radical" by conservatives, why try to placate conservative hysteria? As Ezra Klein put it a couple of weeks ago, "President Obama could nominate the guy on the Quaker Oats box and Glenn Beck would find a way to connect him to Trotsky on his blackboard ('you know who else liked oatmeal!?' ). Moreover, the GOP will enthusiastically help him on that one. Midterm elections are about base mobilization, and nothing is better for base mobilization than an asymmetric Supreme Court fight." If the White House is going to get a fight either way, the president might as well pick a nominee in which he and his allies can take some pride. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
MCCAIN CONCOCTS IMAGINARY SCHEME.... Once in a while, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) slips so far, I don't know what he's saying, and have no idea why he's saying it. Here's the Republican senator talking to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly about an odious immigration bill advancing in Arizona.
Even for McCain, this is pretty odd. Immigrants who entered the country illegally generally don't want to bring this kind of attention to themselves. They don't have any motivation to deliberately cause accidents on freeways. I have no idea what's going to happen in McCain's primary race, but if he loses, it seems very likely that McCain will wake up unemployed in January and realize he did enormous damage to his reputation during his presidential campaign, and then abandoned what was left of his integrity during his re-election campaign. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)
TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) told a Tampa-area TV station yesterday that he's mulling his options. "The law gives you until April 30 to make such a declaration and I'm going to take my time and be as thoughtful as I need to be," Crist said. He said today, however, that he will stay in the Senate race -- either as an independent or as a Republican. * In the meantime, the GOP establishment hopes to end his chances. Today, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) will endorse Marco Rubio. * Republicans continue to rally in support of corporate lobbyist Dan Coats' (R) Senate campaign in Indiana, but Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) this morning threw his backing to state Sen. Marlin Stutzman (R). * On a related note, Rasmussen shows Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) trailing both Coats and Stutzman by wide margins. * In New York, the latest Siena poll shows Andrew Cuomo (D) crushing his various GOP challengers. * Texas' gubernatorial race continues to look very competitive, with Rasmussen showing incumbent Gov. Rick Perry (R) leading Houston Mayor Bill White (D) by only four points, 48% to 44%. * Mac D'Alessandro, a regional political director for the SEIU, is reportedly eyeing a primary campaign against Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), who voted with Republicans on health care reform. * And it may not happen anytime too soon, but White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel apparently intends to run for mayor in Chicago, eventually. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
EVEN HALPERIN WON'T DEFEND GOP TACTICS.... It was a lively discussion on "Morning Joe" this morning, when White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee appeared to discuss Wall Street reform. In particular, he explained why GOP talking points about "bailouts" aren't just wrong, but are in fact the opposite of reality. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Goolsbee also did a nice job highlighting the GOP's motivations for repeating obvious nonsense: "Everybody knows a consultant just handed them that line and they're just reading it. It doesn't matter what's in the bill. It could be a bill about breakfast cereal and they're going to say this is a bailout bill." But what was especially interesting this morning was the moment when host Joe Scarborough turned to Time's Mark Halperin, and urged him to "defend the Republican position" on the legislation. Halperin, who often seems more than sympathetic to the GOP line, couldn't bring himself to support the Republican arguments. "I cannot defend what they're doing," Halperin said. "They are willfully misreading the bill or they are engaged in a cynical attempt to keep the president from achieving something." Note to Republicans: when even Mark Halperin is calling you out for lying, the conventional wisdom is turning against you. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
FINALLY, A VOTE FOR LAEL BRAINARD.... President Obama nominated Lael Brainard to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury for international affairs, and Senate confirmation was expected to be pretty easy. Her background and qualifications are impeccable, and Brainard was likely to get bipartisan support. Given the importance of having competent Treasury Department officials in place during a global economic crisis, it made sense to have the Senate move quickly on the nomination. That didn't happen. Brainard was nominated in March 2009. Last night, 13 months after receiving the nomination, the Senate voted to end obstructionist tactics and allow senators to vote up or down on Brainard's nomination. The cloture vote was 84 to 10. With such broad bipartisan support, why did it take more than a year for the Senate to bring Brainard's nomination to the floor? Because Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) had a hold on the nomination. It's hard to overstate how ridiculous this is.
And why did Kyl block a vote for more than a year? Because the far-right Republican isn't satisfied with -- get this -- administration enforcement of prohibitions on internet gambling. Seriously. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker recently put it, "How can we run a government in the middle of a financial crisis without doing the ordinary, garden-variety administrative work of filling the relevant agencies?" Senate Republicans are acting like children playing with matches. Jon Kyl isn't some random backbencher, he's the #2 Republican in the chamber. Presumably, he's in a position to realize the adverse consequences -- for the government, for the administration, for the entire country -- of his indefensible obstructionism. A mature, functioning democracy simply can't operate this way and expect to thrive. Update: Senators voted 78 to 19 to confirm Brainard. If it takes more than a year to confirm one qualified nominee with this kind of support, the Obama administration should be fully staffed sometime around the end of the 21st century. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
WHAT TO DO ABOUT BROWN.... We talked yesterday about Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.) latest interview, in which the senator was not only rambling and borderline-incoherent, but also claimed that Democrats refuse to focus on job creation -- a claim which is clearly false. Soon after publishing the item, I received a thoughtful note from a regular reader, P.H., who had some concerns about the general approach. I'm re-publishing the entirety of P.H.'s note with permission:
I really do understand this point of view. Much in the same way many Americans "wanted to have a beer" with George W. Bush, Scott Brown seems like a good guy. If one were throwing a backyard barbecue, Brown would probably make a fun guest. If I were choosing a Republican senator to be my neighbor, and help out with this year's July 4th festivities, Brown would probably be high on the list. But to my mind, that makes scrutiny of his, shall we say, "shortcomings" all the more important. When Scott Brown trashes Democratic job-creation efforts with dishonest talking points he doesn't even seem to understand, for example, the casual voter might be inclined to believe him. After all, he seems like a good guy, right? Why would the handsome, likable guy lie? If he says Dems are ignoring the need for more jobs, maybe Dems really are. Except, Dems really aren't. Brown doesn't know what he's talking about, but that doesn't stop him from saying things that aren't true. Of course, it's not just the jobs agenda. Brown has, in his very brief tenure, repeatedly made ridiculous, and at times even insulting, claims about everything from health care reform to Wall Street reform. Just yesterday, yet another one of his patently false arguments was exposed as an unsupported sham. If I had to guess -- and this is purely speculative -- I'd say Brown is more a fool than a liar. He's demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't really understand any area of public policy with any proficiency, so his bogus claims are likely the result of ignorance, not mendacity. But much of the public probably doesn't appreciate the difference, and may be inclined to take his arguments seriously because "people like the guy." In theory, P.H. is right, and Brown can play a constructive role, occasionally breaking with his far-right party. But if he insists on saying idiotic things that aren't true, it's more important, not less, to call him on it, given the apparent credibility that comes with his personable qualities. —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
LIEBERMAN REDISCOVERS HIS LOVE OF OVERSIGHT.... Wouldn't you know it, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has suddenly found he takes administration oversight and subpoena power seriously again. All it took was a Democratic president.
As far as the administration is concerned, publicly releasing materials related to the Hasan case may jeopardize Hasan's trial, and officials are more concerned with prosecuting the mass murderer than satisfying Joe Lieberman's curiosity. Maybe that's a compelling explanation, maybe it's not. But stepping back, I can't help but notice that Lieberman, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, didn't start taking his responsibilities seriously until President Obama -- the one who helped Lieberman keep his gavel in the first place -- took office. In 2007 and 2008, Lieberman was in the same position, and refused to engage in oversight of the Bush/Cheney administration. Questions arose, for example, into internal White House deliberations from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and senators were prepared to subpoena the administration. Lieberman rejected the effort. When his House counterpart, Henry Waxman, delved into the Pentagon's propaganda operation, Blackwater's activities in Iraq, and the controversy surrounding missing emails from the Bush White House, Lieberman chose not to do any oversight at all. For the entire year of 2007, Lieberman's first as committee chairman, the Connecticut Independent didn't launch any proactive inquiries into administration controversies at all. No subpoenas, no hearings, nothing. But now Lieberman has discovered he wants the White House to give him answers. What a coincidence. Yesterday's subpoena requests the documents be made available by next Monday. The administration is expected to ignore the request. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
JUKEBOX JOHN KEEPS CHANGING HIS TUNE.... The state Senate in Arizona approved an odious immigration measure yesterday, which, among other things, makes it a crime to lack proper immigration paperwork in the state, and "requires police officers, if they form a 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status." Arizonans would be eligible for arrest if an officer thinks they might be an illegal immigrant and can't prove otherwise. The measure was strongly opposed by the state police chiefs' association and immigrant-rights groups, but was embraced by Arizona Republicans. It was championed by a right-wing state lawmaker who used to be considered an embarrassment to the GOP, but has become increasingly influential as the party has shifted to the far-right. It's exactly the kind of effort Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has long opposed. That is, previous versions of John McCain. The McCain now facing a right-wing primary challenger thinks this awful proposal is a fine idea.
"He risked his political career for immigration reform, and now he is compromising his principles to fight for his political life," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice and a longtime immigration reform advocate. Keep in mind, McCain wasn't just a passive observer on this issue -- he's actually been a strong advocate of immigration reform, and has consistently been to his party's left. He was, for example, a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants' kids who graduate from high school. McCain also championed a 2007 effort on comprehensive reform, which included a path to citizenship that the far-right labeled "amnesty." And now look at him. The politics of this are transparent. McCain is worried about losing to a right-wing primary challenger, so he's abandoning his principles and previous positions. But the irony is, in his bid to look more appealing, McCain actually looks more ridiculous -- the right knows his dramatic shifts on issues like immigration aren't sincere, while those who've respected McCain's willingness to break from the party line no longer recognize the political hack before them. By trying to impress everyone, McCain is failing to persuade anyone. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
FACT-CHECKING GUESTS -- INCENTIVES VS DISINCENTIVES.... There's been quite a bit of talk of late about the Sunday public-affairs talk shows and the role of fact-checking. The issue was put on the map by NYU professor Jay Rosen, Rosen's ideas were touted by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, and ultimately embraced by ABC's Jake Tapper, the temporary host of "This Week." As the discussion continues, it's worth considering why so many of the programs seem reluctant to incorporate this common-sense approach to quality journalism. There are five Sunday shows: ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," CNN's "State of the Union," and Fox News' "Fox News Sunday." To date, only "This Week" has adopted Rosen's idea on incorporating fact-checking into the process. "Meet the Press" host David Gregory has said he's content to have viewers "fact-check 'Meet the Press' every week on their own terms," whatever that means. As far as I can tell, Bob Schieffer, Candy Crowley, and Chris Wallace haven't addressed the issue at all, though CBS, to its credit, published a fairly detailed fact-check item online after Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) lied repeatedly during a recent broadcast. So, why do the shows seem so reluctant to pursue this? It's certainly possible that they don't want to look like "followers" -- ABC is doing it, and if the other shows follow suit, it gives the appearance of trying to play catch-up. Shows generally want to look like trend-setters, not followers. But Jay Rosen raises a more disconcerting possibility.
I obviously can't speak to the motivations of the shows' producers and hosts. I don't know them and have no idea what they've considered and why. But Rosen's speculation is hardly unreasonable. If I'm a GOP lawmaker, and I know I'm going to repeat demonstrably false talking points about the major issues of the day, I'm much more likely to appear on a program that allows me to lie with impunity than one that incorporates fact-checking as an official part of the show. The shows that count on high-profile guests to generate strong ratings may very well have thought of this, too. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)
April 19, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Progress over the skies of Europe: "Poland reopened four airports and the Netherlands reopened one shortly after European officials carved up the sky Monday, creating three zones to more quickly break the flight deadlock caused by volcanic ash flowing from Iceland over Europe." * I do love green shoots: "The index of U.S. leading indicators rose in March by the most in 10 months, a sign the economy will keep growing into the second half of the year." * Into the lion's den: "President Obama will take his case for tougher financial regulation to Wall Street's backyard this week, the White House announced Monday." * Gates on Iran: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates acknowledged Sunday that in January he sent a memo to the White House outlining the 'next steps in our defense planning process' for Iran." * Gun activists converge on the D.C. area. * Rumors were true: "President Barack Obama has nominated Harvard medical professor Donald Berwick to oversee Medicare and Medicaid." * Sigh: "Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) on Monday issued subpoenas to the Obama administration regarding the shootings at Ft. Hood last year." * Andrew Sabl ponders "the fundamental difference between the kind of responsible libertarians whom I happily have dinner with and the 'buy more guns, more bullets' contingent." * Adam Serwer ponders the "flame war between Tom Goldstein and Glenn Greenwald over Solicitor General Elena Kagan's suitability for the Supreme Court." * On a related note, Greenwald makes a very compelling case for Diane Wood to fill John Paul Stevens' vacancy on the high court. * Greenwald also reports that the White House has sought out defenders for Elana Kagan. For the record, I haven't heard a word from my White House sources on this, but I have no idea if my experience is the norm. [Update: It was actually Sam Stein at the Huffington Post who reported this, not Glenn. My mistake.] * White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs meets with angry reporters to tend to "frayed relations." * A great political cartoon appropriately mocks the Senate Minority Leader, who has no qualms repeating a lie, even after it's exposed as a lie. * Fact checking the Sunday shows. * Financial aid season is not always a pleasant one. * And in Georgia, former Gov. Roy Barnes (D), who seeking his old job back, mocked far-right Republicans who throw around rhetoric about secession from the U.S. "Do they not know that the Yankees have got the atomic bomb now?" Barnes joked. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
CALLING OUT MCCONNELL, CONT'D.... Sounds like a good message to me.
The Senate Minority Leader clearly didn't want to talk about his closed-door meeting with hedge fund managers, bankers, and Wall Street elites when he appeared on CNN yesterday, so it makes sense that Reid would keep pressing this point. For its part, the White House is on the same page. It's latest talking points hammer the point home:
In related news this afternoon, Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R) announced that she will refuse to allow the Senate to even begin a debate on Wall Street reform. Collins met with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about the bill, but told reporters after the meeting that unless the bill is "bipartisan," she will reject an effort to begin consideration of the legislation on the Senate floor. What kind of substantive changes does Collins have in mind that would convince her to let the Senate at least start debating the bill? She hasn't said. Remember, Susan Collins is one of the "moderates" in the Republican Party. In other words, she's ostensibly someone Dems can work with in good faith. So much for that idea. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Last week, the Boston Globe talked to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) about his opposition to Wall Street reform. He initially explained that he disapproves of the bill because it adds "an extra layer of regulation," but that's absurd. Asked how the legislation could be improved, Brown told the reporter, "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me." Behold, the new Republican hero. Yesterday, the dimwitted senator appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation," and was asked about far-right Tea Party activists and their fears about "socialism." Host Bob Schieffer wanted to know if Brown agrees with their paranoia. Here's the senator's response in its entirety, exactly as it appeared in the official transcript:
Now, with a response like this, it's tough to know where to start. One could point out that Brown is wrong about the focus on job creation by pointing to the stimulus bill that rescued the economy. One could note that Brown is wrong about health care, which wasn't "obviously rammed through by using a parliamentary procedure," but rather, passed the Senate through regular order. But I was particularly struck by the notion that Brown believes he's "heard zero talk about jobs." I realize Brown isn't the brightest light in the harbor, if you know what I mean, but after only three months in the Senate, I do expect him to have some sense of the bills he's already voted on. For example, he might remember voting on this "tax extenders" bill last month, which was intended to spur job creation, or perhaps voting on this job bill in February. In both instances, Scott Brown voted with Democrats, which was a fairly big deal with his far-right buddies. Seems like the kind of thing he might remember. It really wasn't that long ago. And yet, there was Brown, telling a national television audience he's "heard zero talk about jobs." That's true, so long as one ignores all the talk about jobs. In some ways, I almost feel bad for Scott Brown. He was elected to Congress before he was able to learn anything about public policy, and was put in a high-profile role before he could speak intelligently about any area of public policy. He didn't even expect to win his Senate campaign, so there probably wasn't any real point to him learning anything substantive before running anyway. Brown, in this sense, is another classic example of a post turtle -- you know he didn't get up there by himself; he obviously doesn't belong up there; he can't get anything done while he's there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down. —Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)
NOTHING WRONG WITH TOUTING GOOD NEWS.... According to Iraqi officials today, two key leaders of the insurgency -- Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and a "somewhat mythic figure who has operated under the name Abu Omar al-Baghdadi" -- were killed in a joint raid launched by U.S. and Iraqi forces. American military officials confirmed Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's announcement. Regular readers may recall that I've frequently argued that the White House has done far too little to brag about these major counter-terrorism success stories. I was delighted, then, to see Vice President Biden talk up the developments in Iraq.
Good. A strategy memo published in March encouraged the White House be more aggressive in highlighting successes like these, encouraging officials to "hype hit lists and body counts." That strikes me as a politically sound strategy. Nearly "three times as many terrorists were killed in Obama's first year as there were in all of President Bush's second term," but the vast majority of the public has no idea that this is true. Indeed, recent successes on counter-terrorism are one of the best-kept secrets in American politics today. Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban's top military commander, was captured. High-profile terrorists have been killed -- Hakimullah Mehsud, Baitullah Mehsud, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan -- while many more have been arrested -- Najibullah Zazi, Talib Islam, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi. For 14 months, President Obama and his team have been very reluctant to exploit these counter-terrorism victories. That's admirable, to be sure. But a little chest-thumping now and then is hardly out of the question. If the White House doesn't draw more attention to their victories, the public may not hear about them. Worse, when GOP hacks suggest the administration isn't "tough" enough, a lot of the public may not realize immediately how idiotic the rhetoric is. Biden's remarks today were heartening, both as a matter of national security, and as a matter of political strategy. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
COLLISION COURSE ON WALL STREET REFORM.... Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) told reporters today he intends to move forward with his Wall Street reform package this week, despite unanimous Republican opposition. Jon Chait considers what happens next.
That sounds about right, but there's a catch. In order for there to be a "huge debate," at least on the Senate floor, the motion to proceed has to get 60 votes. At this point, Republicans aren't just prepared to block an up-or-down vote on the legislation, they're also prepared to prevent the debate from even happening in the first place, filibustering before they filibuster. Both sides seem to think the other will blink first -- Dems are convinced Republicans don't really want to be responsible for blocking the reform bill and doing the bidding of Wall Street lobbyists in an election year. Republicans are convinced they can withstand Democratic criticism and force key concessions to make the bill considerably weaker and more to Wall Street's liking. We'll likely see who's right in a few days. But as long as we're here, perhaps now would be a good time to reiterate how truly ridiculous the legislative dynamic is. There will very likely be 59 senators in support of this critical legislation, and 41 opponents. Under the existing rules, the 41-vote minority not only trumps the 59-vote majority, it also has the power to prevent the Senate from even debating the bill in the first place, despite the fact that some of the 41 haven't the foggiest idea what they're blocking. It's painful to consider the progress the nation could make right now if the Congress operated the way it used to -- by majority rule. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
CRIST GETTING SHOVED OUT?.... Last year, when Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) announced he would forgo re-election and run for the Senate, the Republicans were delighted. They'd urged him to run, felt confident that his victory was a near-certainty, and it wasn't long before the National Republican Senatorial Committee was backing him. On May 12, Crist kicked off his campaign, and that afternoon, the NRSC officially endorsed his bid. That was 11 months ago. Today, the NRSC offered a very different message.
The NRSC message comes the same day that Crist's Senate campaign canceled scheduled television advertisements in central Florida. Crist's next move is anybody's guess. He hinted late last week that he'd consider an independent Senate bid, but there's been no word on when (or whether) such an announcement might be made. I'm especially interested to see how Crist responds to the NRSC's Jesmer email -- I wouldn't be too surprised if the message pushes Crist closer to a third-party run, since he'll no doubt be annoyed by the disrespect. —Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
THE THEOCRATIC WING OF THE GOP.... A certain former half-term governor appears to be drifting even further away from the American mainstream. Over the weekend, appearing at an evangelical Christian women's conference in Louisville, Sarah Palin rejected the very idea of separation of church and state, a bedrock principle of American democracy.
Palin added that she was outraged when President Obama said that "America isn't a Christian nation." The amusing aspect of this is the notion that the United States would return to its roots with support for National Day of Prayer observances. That's backwards -- Thomas Jefferson and James Madison explicitly rejected state-sponsored prayer days. I'll look forward to the conservative explanation of how the Founding Fathers were godless socialists. I also can't wait to hear how right-wing voices who want smaller government believe it's appropriate for the federal government to issue decrees encouraging private American citizens to engage in worship. But far less amusing is the fact that Palin and others of her radical ilk reject any notion that "God should be separated from the state." It's the 21st century, for crying out loud. There are some countries that endorse Palin's worldview and intermix God and government -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -- but they're generally not countries the United States tries to emulate. The separation of church and state has long been a concept that all Americans could embrace, and has served as a model for nations around the world to follow. For Palin to publicly denounce this bedrock American principle suggests she might actually be getting worse. Postscript: As for Palin's outrage over the president acknowledging that we're not "a Christian nation," Obama's entirely correct. Update: Greg Sargent obtained a transcript, and it's worse than I thought. Palin not only thinks the Founding Fathers opposed church-state separation -- in other words, she thinks those who came up with the idea opposed the idea -- she also suggests religious people necessarily reject the constitutional principle. This is just astounding. If anyone this conspicuously unintelligent has ever sought national office, I can't think of who he/she is. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (55)
MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Late on Friday, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) conceded that he has not ruled out running for the Senate as an independent. "I'm not thinking about that today," he said in response to a reporter's question. "We'll look at that later on." * In related news, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has decided to jump on the bandwagon, announcing his support for Marco Rubio over Crist. * And in still more Florida news, a new Quinnipiac poll shows the state's gubernatorial race growing more competitive, with state AG Bill McCollum (R) leading state CFO Alex Sink (D) by four, 40% to 36%. Despite holding statewide office, neither candidate is well known. * In Massachusetts, the Republican State Convention chose Charles Baker as their gubernatorial candidate over the weekend. He'll face incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick (D) and state Treasurer Timothy Cahill (I) in November. A new poll shows Patrick with a narrow lead in the three-way race. * Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) is feeling some heat from primary challenger Marcy Winograd, but delegates to the California Democratic Party met over the weekend and formally endorsed the incumbent. * Polls have been all over the place in Arizona's Republican Senate primary, but Rasmussen now has Sen. John McCain leading former Rep. J.D. Hayworth by just five points, 47% to 42%. * As expected, former Republican National Committeeman Sean Mahoney has announced he'll take on Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) this year in New Hampshire. * Former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) appears to be moving towards a presidential campaign, as is Mississippi Haley Barbour (R). Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), however, appears to have ruled out a national campaign. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
AMERICA'S IMPROVED GLOBAL STANDING.... I've been keeping an eye on international attitudes towards the United States since the change in presidential administrations, and it's been encouraging to see America's standing rise after reaching embarrassing depths. It appears the trend is continuing.
The international poll was conducted between November 2009 and February 2010, and surveyed nearly 30,000 people in 28 countries. It was conducted with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Steven Kull, PIPA's director, noted, "After a year, it appears the 'Obama effect' is real." This isn't the only recent survey showing the nation's standing improving. Gallup reported in February, "Perceptions of U.S. leadership worldwide improved significantly from 2008 to 2009. The U.S.-Global Leadership Project, a partnership between the Meridian International Center and Gallup, finds that a median of 51% of the world approves of the job performance of the current leadership of the U.S., up from a median of 34% in 2008." In October, the Nation Brand Index survey found that the U.S. had reclaimed its position as the most admired country globally, up from seventh place in 2008. Similarly, in July, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found a vast improvement in international views of the United States since the president's election. Obviously, international support can change, sometimes rapidly. But for those who hoped to see our stature improve after eight years of unpleasantness, it's heartening to see the United States' stature grow once again. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
FIFTEEN YEARS AGO TODAY.... With the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing today, it's worth remembering the horrific tragedy, the hate that inspired it, and the 168 victims of the extremists' terrorism. It was, at the time, the deadliest act of domestic terrorism on U.S. soil ever. It's also worth taking a moment to acknowledge the cultural context, and the legitimate concerns that contemporary right-wing hysteria could create an environment that leads violent American radicals to commit another heinous act. Kathleen Parker's latest column asks, "Is the political environment becoming so toxic that we could see another Timothy McVeigh emerge? No one knows the answer, but fears that anger could escalate into action beyond the ballot box are not misplaced." For those of us who follow American politics closely, the developments are common enough to become dizzying. The death threats against Democratic lawmakers. The "reload" and "revolution" rhetoric from unhinged Republican leaders. The constant and overheated attacks on the legitimacy of the Obama presidency and the federal government. The talk of secession and militias from prominent far-right voices. Parker notes that "the unthinkable becomes plausible" under such toxic circumstances.
In some ways, the silence troubles me nearly as much as the extremism itself. I want desperately to hear Republican Party officials and leaders make clear that they find overheated madness to be offensive and wrong. But they don't, because they can't -- Republicans are counting on rage to win elections and fill their campaign coffers. So the party makes Palin a hero, it puts Bachmann in front of the cameras, it sweeps Steve King's sympathies towards domestic terrorism under the rug, it tolerates GOP leaders equating the party with the Taliban, and it decides it can try to lower the temperature at some later date, perhaps after the midterms. Here's hoping that's not too late. —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
MISTRUSTFUL OF GOVERNMENT, BUT WITH CAVEATS.... It seems one of the big political stories of the morning is the results of a new Pew Research Center study, which found a large majority of Americans mistrustful of the federal government. The report noted, "By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days." For progressives, the results of the study may not be especially surprising, but they're nevertheless discouraging. One of President Obama's thematic challenges upon taking office was convincing the electorate that government activism can and should play a role in strengthening the country. That challenge appears even more daunting now, as more of the public opposes the idea of government action reflexively. Indeed, there's apparently even a growing paranoia -- 30% of the public perceive their government as a "major threat" to their personal freedom, which is nearly double the number from seven years ago. Opposition to greater government action does not, however, apply to everything.
Given the ongoing debate in the Senate, this is at least somewhat heartening. Republicans are no doubt tempted to argue, "Democrats want to sic big government on Wall Street," but it's a tough case to make -- Americans want big government go after Wall Street. In the larger sense, I also wonder just how much thought is driving public attitudes on this. Americans are frustrated about a brutal recession, and we're coming off an era in which Republican corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence made the government look pretty awful in the eyes of the American mainstream. As the economy improves, thanks to the efforts of a competent and effective government, I wouldn't be too surprised if this anti-government backlash subsides quite a bit. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
LEAVE THE 19TH AMENDMENT ALONE.... I like to think I can take a joke, and appreciate political commentary intended as humor, but this item from Thomas Mitchell, editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, wasn't amusing. The headline read, "Time to repeal the 19th Amendment?"
To "prove" his point, Mitchell, head of Nevada's largest newspaper, pointed to poll results showing women voters in the state preferring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) over former state Sen. Sue Lowden (R) by a narrow margin, but preferring Reid over real estate agent Danny Tarkanian by a wide margin. This is evidence of "bias." (That women voters might perceive Lowden as more qualified than Tarkanian doesn't seem to enter the equation at all.) Mitchell also pointed to recent Gallup data that showed, nationwide, women tend to prefer Democrats, while men tend to prefer Republicans. This, apparently, substantiates the argument that ... well, actually, I have no idea. If there's a clever insight here, it's hiding well. In a follow-up piece, Thomas described his published argument as "a bit of free hyperbole." He proceeded to compare himself to Larry Summers, and insisted that there really are important gender-based differences between men and women. Thomas was especially dismissive of those who found his "repeal the 19th Amendment" argument offensive, accusing them of failing to consider "any merits or demerits of facts in evidence or syllogism used" in his piece. It's their fault, apparently, not his, that they were insulted. Remember, this guy runs a major newspaper. The mind reels. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
THE MAVERICK'S MUDDLED MESSAGE.... Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the featured guest on "Fox News Sunday," and host Chris Wallace asked a reasonable question on the minds of many political observers: "How can you say, 'I never considered myself a maverick'?"
McCain was no doubt expecting the question, so it stands to reason that this was the best answer he could come up with. The problem, of course, is that it's rather silly on its face -- McCain's response was all about what labels other may or may not apply to him. The question here, however, is all about what labels McCain applies to himself. He's been running around for years, and nearly every sentence out of his mouth is a noun, a verb, and "maverick." When McCain faces a primary challenger and concludes, "I never considered myself a maverick," there's a problem. Wallace, to his credit, followed up explaining the disconnect.
But McCain is running away from the label. That's the point. He eschewed the label with Newsweek, and then again soon after with Politico. The irony is, McCain denied considering himself a maverick because he's worried about his re-election prospects and impressing voters. But by making a transparently ridiculous claim, McCain inadvertently has caused himself far more damage, offering up a six-word soundbite that has become one of the year's most ridiculed and lampooned political phrases. Sticking to the truth would have been far less humiliating. Postscript: Asked about whether he's concerned about anti-incumbency attitudes this year, McCain said, "No, I don't worry about it. I know that I can out-campaign anybody." Well, perhaps not "anybody." —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
April 18, 2010
ADULT LEADERSHIP.... House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) delivered the Republicans' weekly address yesterday, and repeated plenty of tired talking points. Listeners learned, for example, that those rascally Democrats intend to "remake America in the image of Europe." Gripping stuff. But there was a phrase that Cantor mentioned that stood out for me. The frequently-confused Republican leader said that if voters backed the GOP in November, his party would offer "responsible, adult leadership." Now, of all the things Republicans have to offer the electorate, perhaps no three words in the English language are less appropriate than "responsible, adult leadership." As should be abundantly clear by now, today's GOP officials approach their responsibilities and substantive discourse with all the maturity of a child. A young child. A young, slow child. A medicated, young, slow child who's easily distracted and hasn't learned social norms about honesty. Jacob Weisberg notes in his latest piece that there were responsible, adult leaders in the Republican Party in the not-too-distant past, but they've gone missing.
The point of Weisberg's piece was to identify the moment that sent the GOP grown-ups into permanent exile. The Slate editor points to Bill Kristol's 1993 health care strategy memo -- kill reform at all costs, regardless of merit, Kristol advised, and refuse to cooperate in good faith -- as the "crucial" turning point for contemporary Republicans, which helped shape the party's approach to governing ever since. That sounds about right to me. But regardless of the origins, the consequences are the same. In 2010, Republicans choose not to know anything about public policy, can't engage in an honest debate, reflexively oppose anything Democrats support (including GOP ideas), and reject responsibility for the spectacular failures they created while in the majority. Cantor is promising "responsible, adult leadership"? From whom, exactly? When was the last time a Republican leader said something intelligent and accurate about any area of public policy? When was the last time the GOP acted in a responsible fashion during a substantive debate? When was the last time the nation saw so much as a glimmer of maturity from any member of the party leadership? Weisberg concluded, "The rise of hyperpartisanship is not one of those problems for which the left and right are equally to blame. Democrats, who like legislating better than Republican do, and who have seldom had the GOP's ability to march in lockstep, still instinctively prefer to work on a bipartisan basis. They continue to hope, against the odds, that [Responsible Republicans] will escape extinction and one day provide partners for them again." It seems clear to me that won't happen unless Republicans suffer some additional, severe electoral humiliations. On the contrary, if the GOP fares well in the midterms, the party's leaders and rank-and-file members will assume the way to get and keep power is to avoid responsible, adult leadership altogether. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)
MCCONNELL WANTS TO GO 'BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD'.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) flew to New York two weeks ago for a private, behind-closed-doors meeting with hedge fund managers, bankers, and other Wall Street elites. It was after this meeting -- where McConnell reportedly sought campaign contributions -- that the Republican Senate leader returned to D.C. determined to kill the legislation that would bring some accountability to the same industry whose recklessness nearly destroyed the global financial system. McConnell was asked on CNN this morning what, specifically, was said at the gathering about the Wall Street reform bill. The conservative Kentuckian was evasive -- imagine that -- and instead of answering the questions, he talked about scrapping the legislation altogether.
It's like deja vu all over again -- Democrats tackle a pressing national issue, negotiate with Republicans in good faith, craft a reasonable, middle-of-the-road legislative package that deserves bipartisan support, lobbyists tell Republicans to kill it, and McConnell voices his support for killing the legislation and going "back to the drawing board." Is it me or does this sound familiar? McConnell's principal (but not principled) concern is over the legislation's liquidation fund, which would impose a fee on large financial institutions, collecting money that would be used to cover the costs of closing firms that fail. McConnell, who doesn't know what he's talking about, has characterized this provision as "institutionalizing bailouts." Fine, the Obama administration said. If it will help create bipartisan support for the bill, and end talk of a Republican filibuster, the provision on the liquidation fund can be scuttled. So, problem solved? Hardly.
Again, we've seen these genuinely stupid tactics before. "Republicans can't support the reasonable legislation Democrats want because it has a provision we're pretending not to like." "Fine, we'll get rid of the provision." "Republicans still can't support the legislation, and we don't want to tell you why." I know Republicans want to be taken seriously on public policy, but I can't figure out why anyone would. —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
GEITHNER GLAD TO SEE TEA PARTIERS COME AROUND.... On "Meet the Press," host David Gregory asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to reflect a bit on the Tea Partiers, particularly in light of April 15 events this week. I found Geithner's response kind of interesting.
I didn't see the video of this, only the transcript, so it's hard to say whether Geithner was actually being coy with his comments. But what I liked about his response was its subtle underpinnings. The Treasury secretary's remarks, which apparently came at the very end of the interview, effectively told the Tea Party crowd, "Oh, now you're worried about fiscal responsibility. While Bush and the Republicans were taking fiscal irresponsibility to new depths with tax cuts and government expansion without paying for it, you kept on supporting them, but now you care." The subtext is politically relevant -- for folks who are literally taking to the streets to complain about budget shortfalls, the real rage should be directed at the Republican gang that turned surpluses into deficits, and added $5 trillion to the debt. —Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)
OBAMA/PETRAEUS VS. CANTOR.... As the Nuclear Security Summit came to a close this week in Washington, President Obama talked at some length about his national security vision at a press conference. Near its completion, the president noted that given the scope of United States' influence and power, global conflicts invariably necessitate U.S. involvement at some level. Because a certain former half-term governor isn't very bright, Obama's observation has become the subject of scrutiny. But in those same presidential remarks, the preceding sentence also proved noteworthy, and arguably more significant. Describing the Middle East peace process, Obama said, "[W]hat we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it's also in the interest of the United States." He added that conflicts like the one between Israelis and Palestinians end up "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure" In other words, developments in Israel necessarily help shape the security framework for the region, which in turn, shapes threats to the U.S. This may not seem especially controversial, but it represents a subtle shift in the U.S. approach, and comes as a result of lengthy deliberations between Obama's White House team and military leaders. Indeed, the president's remarks "echoed those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the military commander overseeing America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," who recently explained to Congress that "the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for the United States" in the region. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was apparently outraged by the Obama/Petraeus position.
Eric Cantor being deeply confused is nothing new. But this latest flap is nevertheless a reminder of a larger trend -- Obama and military leaders on one side, conservative Republicans on the other. From Iran to civilian trials to Gitmo to torture to how the U.S. perceives the Middle East peace process in the context of our national security interests, the president's approach enjoys the backing of the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and Petraeus, while Republicans are on a separate page altogether. To be sure, that doesn't mean Obama's right and Republicans like Cantor are wrong. It is, however, a highly unusual dynamic in which the official GOP line deliberately rejects the judgment of the nation's military leaders. —Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
CONTEXT AND SUPERPOWERS.... I really had every intention of ignoring this, but since the Associated Press has decided to make it one of the leading political stories of the day, it's probably worth taking a moment to highlight reality.
Reading comprehension isn't one of the former half-term governor's strengths, so perhaps it's not surprising that Palin is badly misquoting, and deliberately misunderstanding, what the president said. Here's Obama's actual quote:
Palin, who is painfully, conspicuously unintelligent, wasn't quite sharp enough to understand the president's remarks. Perhaps he should have chosen words with fewer syllables. He didn't say there's a potential problem with the U.S. being a superpower; he said it's important for Americans to appreciate the global responsibilities that come with that power when conflicts arise, and the sweeping effects of these conflicts on the country's global interests. As Greg Sargent explained the other day, "Palin and her team of ghostwriters plucked Obama's remark out of context to quote him saying 'whether we like it or not,' we are a superpower. In reality, he was saying that 'whether we like it or not,' we get pulled into international conflicts that cost us American lives -- so it's in our security interests to resolve them." It's really not that hard to understand, so long as you read the words and recognize the scope of the United States' global influence.
April 17, 2010
CALLING OUT MCCONNELL.... In a thorough report yesterday, McClatchy noted, "Leaders of both parties had vowed for months that consideration of financial regulatory changes wouldn't mirror the angry, partisan debates over health care and stimulating the economy. Everyone agreed that voters want tough new restrictions on Wall Street, and the legislation that the Senate is to take up later this month is full of bipartisan ideas." So, what happened? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) decided this week to throw "a rhetorical stick of dynamite into what had been a collegial debate." He did so by lying about the substance of the proposal, and raising bogus complaints about the process. That McConnell is obviously, shamelessly doing Wall Street's bidding doesn't seem to faze him. Indeed, the larger dynamic is surprisingly transparent. While McConnell is saying the Democratic proposal would somehow "institutionalize" bailouts, Matt Yglesias explained, "The point of the new regulatory powers it to (a) prevent the need for bailouts and (b) provide an alternative process to bailouts. The banks aren't paying McConnell to put a stop to bailouts, they're paying him to prevent the regulations that might stop bailouts." But of particular interest, at least politically, was McConnell rushing off to New York last week for a private, behind-closed-doors meeting with hedge fund managers and other Wall Street elites. It was after this meeting -- where McConnell reportedly sought campaign contributions -- that the Republican Senate leader returned to D.C. determined to kill the legislation that would bring some accountability to the same industry whose recklessness nearly destroyed the global financial system. Today, President Obama was rather direct in calling McConnell out. In the weekly White House address, the president made note of the legislative landscape, and reminded Americans about McConnell's antics: "Now, unsurprisingly, these reforms have not exactly been welcomed by the people who profit from the status quo -- as well their allies in Washington. This is probably why the special interests have spent a lot of time and money lobbying to kill or weaken the bill. Just the other day, in fact, the Leader of the Senate Republicans and the Chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue. "Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican Leader came out against the common-sense reforms we've proposed. In doing so, he made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts -- when he knows that it would do just the opposite. Every day we don't act, the same system that led to bailouts remains in place -- with the exact same loopholes and the exact same liabilities. And if we don't change what led to the crisis, we'll doom ourselves to repeat it. That's the truth. Opposing reform will leave taxpayers on the hook if a crisis like this ever happens again." McConnell's Wall Street meeting, in other words, is quickly becoming one of the central aspects of the debate. Perhaps the Minority Leader would be willing to shed some additional light on what transpired? Who, exactly, did he meet with? How much money did he collect? What did the Wall Street elites demand, specifically, and what did he promise? I wonder what the reaction might be if Senate Dems raised the prospect of some kind of investigation into the meeting, complete with subpoenas for attendees. —Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
FIRST, WALL STREET, THEN CLIMATE.... The next big fight on Capitol Hill is obviously Senate work on bringing new safeguards to Wall Street. But once that's finished -- if it gets finished -- what's next? President Obama told several business leaders yesterday that an energy/climate bill will soon follow, and he'd like their help in getting it passed.
That's a reasonable assumption. The most common complaint from detractors -- aside, of course, from the notion that all climate science is an elaborate conspiracy intended to destroy capitalism -- is that combating global warming will undermine businesses and the economy. The more leaders of the business community say otherwise, the better. But what can we reasonably expect to happen in this fight? The House passed its climate bill, with cap-and-trade, last summer, 219 to 212. At the time, it garnered the support of eight House Republicans -- which, in retrospect, still seems like something of a miracle. The Senate will likely prove to be even more difficult. Steven Pearlstein gives the bill "a 50-50 chance."
As much as I want this bill to pass, and know that we won't see an opportunity like this again for quite a while, I'm finding it difficult to be optimistic. For one thing, Republicans will be under enormous pressure from their party to oppose any and all climate-related efforts, and they tend to buckle when the heat is on. For another, there's no guarantee that Midwestern Dems will stick with their party on this, either. And complicating matters further, if the Senate manages to pass a bill, the House leadership may struggle to put together another majority to seal the deal. I guess we'll see soon enough. —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week are the latest developments in our ongoing coverage of the devastating scandal surrounding the Roman Catholic Church, the sexual abuse of children, and an apparent cover-up. This week, the pope tried a shift in tone, but it did little to quell the larger controversy.
The unscripted remarks were something of a departure from the usual line taken by church officials, but they weren't necessarily compelling to victims and their families. Mark Serrano, a spokesman for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) said in a statement, "Sadly, once again, the globe's most powerful religious figure will win headlines for uttering a couple of sentences, when he should in fact be taking dramatic steps to safeguard kids." Making matters slightly worse was the pope's reference to the notion that the church is "now under the attacks of the world," as if the substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of children make the church somehow the victim of unfair criticism. The scandal, in other words, continues. Also from the God Machine this week: * The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in the year's biggest church-state case, involving a Christian student organization at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The state school only funds and recognizes student groups that don't discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation." The on-campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society refuses to allow LGBT students to join, so Hastings lost its status as an official student group. The student group is claiming "discrimination" against conservative Christian beliefs, while the school believes it is not legally required to subsidize groups that show prejudice towards other students. [corrected] * The late Jerry Falwell's university will host a major religious right gathering this week called "The Awakening 2010," featuring a variety of right-wing heavyweights from the theocratic wing of the conservative movement. Among the attendees: Virginia's controversial state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R). * A Pittsburgh-area Roman Catholic bishop will no longer allow nuns who supported health care reform to "promote their recruitment events in his parishes or in the diocesan newspaper." (thanks to K.M. for the tip) * And in Florida, Republican state lawmakers are moving forward with a proposed state constitutional amendment "allowing state money to flow to religious organizations." Florida's Constitution currently mandates that houses of worship and religious ministries rely on voluntary contributions, but conservative Republicans want to amend it to allow officials to give taxpayer money directly to the faith-based institutions. (thanks to D.J. for the tip) —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
BOEHNER TIES HIMSELF IN KNOTS.... After reports surfaced yesterday that the Securities and Exchange Commission is going after Goldman Sachs, both sides of the political divide tried to seize on the news to make a larger point. Only one side made sense. For Democrats, the case was pretty easy -- Goldman Sachs' alleged wrongdoing only reinforces the obvious need to pass Wall Street reform, bringing new safeguards and accountability to the financial system. For congressional Republicans, the argument was a little trickier.
Boehner's analysis of the legislation is, on its face, idiotic. But putting the obvious legislative nonsense aside, I can't quite wrap my head around Boehner's political point. To hear the dimwitted Minority Leader put it, the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs are close allies, and the administration-backed reform bill is intended to help firms like Goldman Sachs. And we now know for sure that administration officials are carrying water for Goldman Sachs because ... they just charged Goldman Sachs with fraud. What? I'm trying to imagine the conversation in Boehner's office when the statement was being written. Which genius on Boehner's staff discovered that the Obama administration is going after Goldman Sachs, regardless of its campaign contributions to Obama, and thought, "A ha! Now we've got 'em!" Let me try to explain this is a way even Boehner can understand: when the Securities and Exchange Commission accuses a major Wall Street firm of fraud, that's not good for the firm. If the administration were trying to do favors for Goldman Sachs, it wouldn't file a civil lawsuit against the firm. "Just whose side is President Obama on?" Well, as of yesterday, he doesn't appear to be on Goldman's side. Given that Republicans are trying to shield Wall Street for accountability and safeguards, the better question is, "Whose side is Boehner on?" —Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
IF IT'S SUNDAY.... Believe it or not, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did not appear on one of the Sunday public affairs talk-shows in March. Seriously, not one. That hardly ever happens. Fox News will put things right tomorrow.
In promoting the interview, Fox probably characterized McCain as "a familiar face" to mean that the senator and the president have long been at odds. Of course, when I see the phrase, I take it to mean that McCain is "a familiar face" on Sunday shows that seem almost obsessed with him. For those keeping score -- and you know I am -- this will be McCain's 21st appearance on a Sunday morning talk show since Obama's inauguration. That's an average of 1.5 appearances a month, every month, for over a year -- more than any other public official in the country. Since the president took office 14 months ago, McCain has been on ABC's "This Week" three times (9.27.09, 8.23.09, and 5.10.09), CNN's "State of the Union" four times (1.10.10, 10.11.09, 8.2.09, and 2.15.09), CBS's "Face the Nation" five times (1.24.10, 10.25.09, 8.30.09, 4.26.09, and 2.8.09), and NBC's "Meet the Press" four times (2.28.10, 12.6.09, 7.12.09, and 3.29.09). His appearance on "Fox News Sunday" tomorrow will be his fifth since Obama's inauguration (4.18.10, 12.20.09, 7.2.09, 3.8.09, and 1.25.09), Obviously, there's no reason for this. McCain lost a presidential election; he's not in the GOP leadership; he's not especially influential with anyone; he's not playing an active role in shaping any legislation; and he doesn't appear to have any expertise in any area of public policy. The Sunday shows seem to book him out of habit. It's farcical. Of course, if McCain loses his Republican primary in Arizona, one of the networks can make the process more efficient and just give McCain his own Sunday morning talkshow. Then again, maybe I shouldn't give the networks any ideas. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
BRUTAL, BUT NOT POLITICAL.... Conservative bloggers have been buzzing lately about a terrible assault in New Orleans last week, which they've argued was anti-Republican violence. Yesterday, the story started generating broader attention from major news outlets. But instead of validating the conservative speculation, the focus on the story ended up largely debunking the partisan allegations.
As best as we can tell from the available information, Bautsch and Brown left a popular French Quarter restaurant last Friday night, but were followed by a group of men who shouted obscenities at them. The men eventually caught up with the couple, and brutally assaulted them before running away. The two sustained serious injuries. In the version of events pushed by far-right bloggers, there were protestors on hand for the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, and the attackers may have come from that group. There appears to be no evidence to support that. The bloggers also claimed that Bautsch and/or Brown were wearing pins in support of Sarah Palin, and that may have helped trigger the brutality, but we now know they were wearing no such pins. Perhaps most importantly, some conservative sites claimed that a New Orleans police officer said the beatings appeared to be "of a political nature" -- a quote that was picked up by some outlets, including Fox News -- but the quote appears to have been made up. The police department has denied it entirely. The results of the investigation aren't conclusive, but at this point, characterizing the incident as anti-Republican is unsupported by the available facts. It appears, then, that a brutal assault was seized on by partisans in the hopes of scoring some political points. Bautsch and Brown weren't just victims of an attack; they were pawns for conservative bloggers to exploit. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
April 16, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Wow: "Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail. The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers." * Senate Dems would love to use Goldman to advance Wall Street reform, the way they used Anthem to advance health care reform. * A new line in the sand: President Obama will veto financial regulatory reform if it fails to regulate the derivatives market. * Blackwater: "The former president of Blackwater Worldwide and four other former officials at the embattled security firm were indicted Friday on federal weapons charges, partially the result of a raid two years ago by agents that rounded up 22 weapons, including AK-47s." * Good: "President Obama called Friday for Congress to pass legislation giving voting representation to residents of the nation's capital. The House Democratic leader, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, plans to bring the measure, called the D.C. Voting Rights Act, to the floor next week for a vote." * Wise words from President Clinton on the consequences of angry, right-wing rhetoric. * After the Senate passed an extension of unemployment benefits, the House did the same on a 289 to 112 vote. President Obama signed it into law last night. * A long day of conservative badgering for appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu. * Solicitor General Elena Kagan has come under some progressive criticism over her views on executive power, but the critiques are not universal. * CATO makes Romney look pretty foolish. (thanks to D.D. for the tip) * I was afraid no one would get my Venn Diagram reference. * The Washington Post really shouldn't give platforms to bigots. * Do you suppose the Teabaggers know Republicans voted against troop funding? * Hoping to change the law when it comes to student loans and bankruptcy. * I'm afraid Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) doesn't know the meaning of the word "own." * Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) thinks the United States may be "reliant upon the Soviet Union" for future low-earth orbit access. He's not very bright. * Jon Stewart offered some worthwhile guidance to Fox News last night. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... We talked earlier about a federal court ruling that found it problematic when the federal government designates a special day to encourage Americans to pray. Something about the separation of church and state, the First Amendment, and the notion that it's not the government's business when, how, or whether we worship. The court ruling is being appealed, but in the meantime, Fox News' Megyn Kelly decided to debate the court ruling today with the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. [Full disclosure: Barry is a long-time friend of mine.] During the discussion, Barry explained a concept that should be obvious: "Prayer is religious. It's nothing but that. There is no secular purpose here." If there's no secular purpose, than it's not something the government should be involved in. Kelly, unembarrassed about her role as an anchor/activist, pushed back to defend the National Day of Prayer. "[W]hy can't it be a day where we take a moment and we stop and we acknowledge the role that God has played in the formation of this country and its laws," Kelly asked incredulously. "What's so promotional about religion there?" Now, I've never been especially impressed with Megyn Kelly's understanding of current events, but I'd hoped she understood the meaning of the words "promotion" and "religion." In this case, she likes the idea of having the government designate an official prayer day, intended as a way of honoring God's special role in influencing and shaping American society. This, Kelly concluded, would not be an example of promoting religion. Once in a while, I feel kind of sorry for Fox News viewers. Is it any wonder they're confused? —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
LOOKING TO DRIVE A WEDGE.... It's hard to keep track of exactly what it is the Tea Party crowd is so angry about -- not a good sign for a political "movement" -- but it appears to have something to do with debt, deficits, spending, taxes, the size of government, and a general sense that powerful interests are getting better protections than they are. It's why the activists caught up in this intend to vote for Republicans in November. The irony, of course, is that Republicans aren't exactly offering this far-right crowd a compelling pitch. The GOP added $5 trillion to the debt in eight years, generated huge deficits, increased spending, increased the size of government, and went to great lengths to tend to the need of powerful special interests. Worse, it was Republicans who voted against middle-class tax cuts and continue to fight to protect Wall Street and insurance companies. With that in mind, Americans United for Change, a leading progressive group, thinks it may be able to drive a wedge between Tea Partiers and the GOP.
That's not a bad idea, at least in theory. The only reason I'm skeptical is that the effort is predicated on intellectual consistency and informed reason on the part of these activists -- two traits the Tea Party crowd seem to be lacking. Indeed, if the teabagging crowd is given a choice between the bailed-out financial institutions that nearly destroyed the global economy and new safeguards in the form of government regulation, a significant number will reject the latter course reflexively -- because "government" and "regulation" are necessarily bad things to be avoided, even if it means going easy on the Wall Street crowd that caused Tea Partiers so much economic anxiety in the first place. In other words, the wedge strategy makes sense, if you assume that the right-wing activists are open to reason and evidence. I'm not sure that they are, but the initiative is worth keeping an eye on. —Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
SENATE GOP HAS VOTES TO BLOCK FINREG DEBATE.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled his intention to move forward as early as next week on financial regulatory reform legislation. "We have talked about this enough. We have negotiated this enough," Reid said. To prevent the bill from moving forward towards a vote, all 41 Senate Republicans would have to unanimously agree to filibuster the motion to proceed. (In other words, the GOP would refuse to allow the debate to even get underway.) As of yesterday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not yet have commitments from all 41 members of his caucus. Today, that changed.
The Republican caucus was not specific about the path ahead. Indeed, the GOP's letter did not even specifically vow to block the motion to proceed, but rather, simply articulated the caucus' collective "opposition." It stands to reason, though, that the point of the letter is that Republicans are prepared to block the vote and the debate on bringing some safeguards to the industry that caused the economic disaster. It's worth remembering that Senate Democrats, by and large, didn't really expect it to come to this. Given Wall Street's scandalous recklessness, and the public's disgust for irresponsible misconduct in the financial industry, Dems thought it would be politically suicidal for Republicans to reject reform efforts. As of this afternoon, it appears Republicans are prepared to link arms and take their chances, fighting to protect Wall Street from accountability. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)
SCHOEN AND CADDELL ARE AT IT AGAIN.... Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell, Democratic pollsters who worked with Presidents Clinton and Carter, have been arguing for quite a while that they think the party is pursuing the wrong course. Perhaps most famously, the two insisted in mid-March that Democrats would be far better off with the electorate if the party failed to pass health care reform. Fortunately, Democratic policymakers ignored Schoen's and Caddell's advice. They're back today, however, with related suggestions that they believe will prevent "a November bloodbath." The pollsters lean on some Rasmussen data -- never a sound approach -- to insist that Dems are facing a "backlash" in response to the breakthrough victory on health care. They also characterize independents as a single, self-contained group, which as we know, is folly. In fairness, Schoen and Caddell characterize Democrats as facing a very challenging electoral environment, an observation that's difficult to ignore. But the two really run into trouble when they explain what they'd like to see Dems do next.
And at this point, Schoen and Caddell go back to embracing cherry-picked data (again, from Rasmussen) that characterizes right-wing Tea Partiers as mainstream -- while a more serious look at the data shows otherwise. The pollsters argue that nearly half of the far-right "movement" consists of "non-Republicans" the day after an independent national poll found that Tea Party activists "usually or almost always vote Republican." Schoen and Caddell also insist, "[T]he Tea Party movement to become as potent a force as any U.S. political party." Nonsense. A significant percentage of the American mainstream doesn't know what the Tea Party "movement" is or what it stands for; those who know about it often don't like it; and a whopping 4% of the public has "given money or attended a Tea Party event, or both." Their odd op-ed goes on to say that President Obama and congressional Democrats appear to care too much about unions, when they should really be working on an agenda focused on "reducing the debt, with an emphasis on tax cuts." And to think Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell have lost some of their influence in the Democratic mainstream. I can't imagine how that happened. To put it mildly, the piece is unpersuasive. As the pollsters see it, while Republicans work to make right-wing Tea Party activists happy, Democrats will survive the midterms if they do exactly the same thing. Democrats may have won in a national landslide in 2008, but to stay in power they should appeal to those voters who already loathe and voted against them. A lot of adjectives come to mind reading Schoen's and Caddell's advice, but "wise" isn't one of them. —Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)
STILL HEATING UP.... It was one of the warmest winters ever recorded. And as Spring got underway, it was the warmest March ever recorded, too.
Developments like these probably won't matter on the Hill, but they should. As we've seen in recent months, cold weather and snowfall during the winter has apparently made it less likely the Senate will vote on a new energy/climate bill. Mind-numbing though it may be, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) recently said snowfall in D.C. has had an effect on policymakers' attitudes: "It makes it more challenging for folks not taking time to review the scientific arguments." Of course, we can point to results like those we saw in March, but for a few too many Republican policymakers, all scientific data is part of an elaborate conspiracy/plot, and deserves to be rejected. Nevertheless, the climate bill is moving forward. The legislation being crafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will reportedly be unveiled on April 26. The EPA and CBO will then "produce studies of its costs and effectiveness, a process that will take as much as six weeks." There's limited optimism about the bill's future, but note that policymakers may not get another chance at this for quite a while. If the GOP makes meaningful gains in the midterm elections, as seems likely, it may be many years before Congress even tries to limit emissions and combat global warming, even as the threat of the crisis grows more intense. The environmental consequences are likely to be severe and unforgiving. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
CALLING OUT MCCONNELL.... When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made the laughable argument that the Wall Street reform legislation would "institutionalize" bailouts, there was one key upside: he was lying well in advance of Paul Krugman's next deadline. The NYT columnist doesn't disappoint, labeling the Republican's nonsensical rhetoric "shameless."
Even for Senate Republicans, this is an ugly scam -- McConnell rushes off to New York for a private, behind-closed-doors meeting with hedge fund managers and other Wall Street elites, and he returns to the Hill to kill the legislation that would bring some accountability to the same industry whose recklessness nearly destroyed the global financial system. CNBC's John Harwood explained this week that McConnell's anti-reform argument is "a little silly when you look at the text of the bill." And with that in mind, the White House is encouraging people to look at the text of the bill. As Krugman concluded, "So don't be fooled. When Mitch McConnell denounces big bank bailouts, what he's really trying to do is give the bankers everything they want." —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * To the relief of the DSCC, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) announced yesterday that he will not run for the Senate this year. The decision improves Sen. Russ Feingold's (D) re-election chances considerably. * After Charlie Crist (R) vetoed an education bill championed by conservative Republicans in the state legislature, former Sen. Connie Mack (R) resigned as chairman of Crist's Senate campaign. * As speculation about Crist's future in the GOP intensifies, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) is warning the Floridian not to run as an independent. * The latest Mason-Dixon poll in Nevada shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing Sue Lowden (R) by 10 points, even when a full slate of third-party candidates is included in the mix. * In Hawaii's upcoming special election, a new Research 2000 poll shows Charles Djou (R) narrowly leading a three-way contest. He's running against two Democrats at the same time, splitting the party's support in half. * The DNC is prepared to invest more than $50 million in cash and services for House, Senate, and gubernatorial campaigns this year, starting in June. * The latest Research 2000 poll in Arkansas shows Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) with a 12-point lead over her primary challenger, Bill Halter, 45% to 33%. * Michael Heath kicked off his independent gubernatorial campaign in Maine earlier this week. Yesterday, he quit. * And most likely presidential candidates create political action committees to support like-minded candidates, raising money specifically for the purpose of donating it. Former half-term governor Sarah Palin's PAC spent $409,000 in the first quarter, but only $9,500 in support of candidates. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
THE LIMITS OF AN AWKWARD MEDIA RELATIONSHIP.... It seems likely that the Tea Party "movement," such as it is, wouldn't exist in any meaningful way were it not for Fox News. In turn, the right-wing groups that make up the "movement" reward the Republican network with their unyielding loyalty. Last week, when Rupert Murdoch said publicly that Fox News shouldn't play a formal role in "supporting the Tea Party," it was unintentionally hilarious. The network has already invested heavily in doing just that, repeatedly, for the better part of a year. It was interesting, then, to learn that there are limits to the awkward media relationship.
The network obviously made the right call here. Hannity had effectively obliterated the line between professional standards and shameless hackery, and apparently even Fox News has its limits. It's one thing for a cable network to become a promotional vehicle for right-wing activism, but to allow far-right groups to effectively co-produce a broadcast, and make money from selling proximity to a media professional was apparently deemed indefensible, even for Fox. James Poniewozik summarized the dynamic nicely: "Attention, Tea Party: You do not make money off Fox News! Fox News makes money off you!" —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
OBAMA 'AMUSED' BY TEA PARTY NONSENSE.... As a rule, President Obama goes to great lengths -- perhaps even too far, on occasion -- to avoid partisan rhetoric. It's why it's all the more satisfying when the president appears at party fundraisers and let's his guard down a little. Obama appeared at a DNC event in Miami last night, and as part of his remarks, he reflected on the Tea Party gatherings. The president conceded that he's "amused" by all the fuss. "[S]ince today happens to be Tax Day, I should just point out that one third of the Recovery Act went to tax cuts -- tax cuts that strengthened the cornerstone of the American Dream: working for a living, earning an education, owning a home, raising a family," he said. "We cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, just like I promised we would on the campaign. That made a difference for 7 million families in Florida alone. We cut taxes on small businesses. We cut taxes for students and parents paying for college. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers, more than 128,000 here in Florida. In all, we passed 25 different tax cuts last year. And one thing we haven't done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year -- another promise that we kept. "So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying, 'Thank you.'" The comments were not well received by the right, but it's hardly an unreasonable point. Right-wing activists started rallying in March to complain about taxes, less than a month after Obama gave them a tax cut. It's hardly a surprise they're going to be subjected to some mockery. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (217)
THE GAME THE WSJ LIKES TO PLAY.... The far-right editorial board of the Wall Street Journal has a problematic approach to ... well, most things, actually. But let's take letters to the editor for a moment. Last week, the Journal published a letter from a reader that insisted that the "Cornhusker Kickback" was "in the final bill" on health care reform that was signed into law. That's clearly false, the WSJ editors surely knew it was false, but they published the letter anyway without correction or clarification. That's just poor journalism. Today, meanwhile, the Journal published a letter from Larry Summers, director of President Obama's National Economic Council. Summers was responding to a recent WSJ editorial that took some of Summers' work out of context to argue that extending unemployment benefits encouraged out-of-work Americans not to find a job. The Wall Street Journal ran the letter, but nevertheless devoted an entire editorial to slamming Summers, defending its out-of-context quote, and again making the case to cut off benefits for the unemployed. A few things to consider here. First, Sumnmers' case on the merits is persuasive.
Second, it's fascinating to see the WSJ publish demonstrably false claims in a letter to the editor without comment, and then publish accurate claims in a letter to the editor with an accompanying editorial attack. And third, if the Journal's far-right editorial board spent a little more time looking out for the interests of the unemployed, and a little less time carrying water for the irresponsible clowns who crashed the economy and put so many out of work in the first place, it'd be easier to take the newspaper seriously. *last paragraph edited —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
WHAT WAS CBS THINKING?.... Ben Domenech, fairly characterized as a "serial-plagiarist and right-wing blogger," hasn't stopped publishing embarrassing content. The question is why CBS News would endorse Domenech's more outrageous claims. Yesterday, Domenech published un-sourced gossip about Solicitor General Elena Kagan's personal life on his website, stating without evidence of substantiation that Kagan is "openly gay." CBS nevertheless sought and received Domenech's permission to re-publish his piece on the news outlet's website. CBS, hours later, added an "editor's note" explaining that "a White House spokesperson said that Domenech reference to Ms. Kagan as gay is innaccurate [sic]." For his part, Domenech updated his piece to say that Kagan is "apparently still closeted." By late yesterday, Domenech issued a non-apology apology, saying he's sorry "if [Kagan] is offended" by his publishing of a "rumor" that he stated as fact. The White House was unimpressed.
CBS initially defended Domenech's piece, but later deleted it from the network's site after Domenech conceded he was merely passing along un-sourced innuendo. Dan Farber, editor in chief of CBSNews.com, conceded that the piece "was nothing but pure and irresponsible speculation on the blogger's part." As for the veracity of the Domenech's rumor, who cares? Kurtz talked to an administration official who said Kagan is not a lesbian, but what difference does it make? The question is one of professional standards -- which in this case, CBS chose to ignore. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)
FEDERAL COURT REJECTS NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER.... There are already right-wing chain emails circulating about this, so let's set the record straight. The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a congressionally-mandated "holiday" called the "National Day of Prayer." The group argued that the annual occurrence undermines the separation of church and state. Late yesterday, a federal court in Wisconsin agreed.
"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience." This hardly seems radical. As "holidays" go, the official National Day of Prayer is difficult to understand. For the faithful, every day is a day of prayer, and they don't need official encouragement. For a secular government that separates church from state, the idea of a state-sanctioned day in which elected leaders encourage Americans to pray is odd, if not ridiculous. Indeed, for all the recent talk about "big government," federal "intrusion," and getting back to American traditions in line with the Founding Fathers, conservatives should find an official annual prayer day for the nation pretty offensive. It's an entirely modern creation -- the NPD was established in 1952, and set as the first Thursday in May in 1988 -- and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison explicitly rejected state-sponsored prayer days. So, what are conservatives worked up about? First, the small-government crowd is outraged that a federal court would find an official federal prayer day problematic. (Americans need government to tell us when to pray? Only if you listen to the far-right.) Second, according to bizarre emails that you'll soon receive from your crazy relatives, the story has morphed into President Obama "cancelling" the National Day of Prayer. For the record, the Obama White House issued a prayer-day proclamation last year, and will apparently do so again this year while the court ruling is being appealed. That won't, however, stop the far-right freak-out. Nothing ever does. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
OVERDUE PROGRESS ON HOSPITAL VISITATION RIGHTS.... The Obama administration has taken some important steps over the last year on gay rights, but arguably none is more important than the change announced last night.
Because nearly every American hospital receives at least some federal funding, the policy change is expected to have a significant national impact. It will not be immediate -- HHS will begin a rule-making process -- but the shift is expected to take effect later this year. The change was reportedly inspired, at least in part, by the ordeal a Florida family endured in 2007. Lisa Pond was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm, and partner of 18 years, Janice Langbehn, and their four adopted children, were prohibited from seeing her. Langbehn had power of attorney for Pond, but officials still refused. Pond died before her loved ones were even allowed into her hospital room. Last night, President Obama called Langbehn to tell her about his administration's new policy. "I was so humbled that he would know Lisa's name and know our story," Langbehn told the NYT. "He apologized for how we were treated. For the last three years, that's what I've been asking the hospital to do. Even now, three years later, they still refuse to apologize to the children and I for the fact that Lisa died alone." A spokesperson for the Family Research Council, a leading anti-gay religious right group, characterized the policy shift as "pandering," and whined, "The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage." This is the same Family Research Council that recently labeled Obama "our first gay president." Whatever. The far-right can pout and send ugly fundraising letters about this, but decent people will still be able to consider this development for what it is: another breakthrough for decency, compassion, and common sense. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
April 15, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Quite a sight: "A plume of volcanic ash from Iceland hovering over Northern Europe severely disrupted air travel for hundreds of thousands of airline passengers Thursday as authorities cancelled flights across the region." * President Obama speaks in Florida, recommits his administration to NASA's future. * Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has her eyes on Massey Energy. * Housing crisis isn't over: "A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year, a sign banks are starting to wade through the backlog of troubled home loans at a faster pace, according to a new report." * Targeting the Taliban: "The Pentagon has increased its use of the military's most elite special operations teams in Afghanistan, more than doubling the number of the highly trained teams assigned to hunt down Taliban leaders, according to senior officials." * The public is still open to persuasion on the merits of the Affordable Care Act. * Good to know: "Climate change researchers accused of manipulating or hiding data in last year's 'Climategate' affair were guilty of sloppy record-keeping but not bad science, an independent panel in Britain concluded Wednesday." * On a related note, expect to see the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman climate bill on April 26. * Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) still isn't truth-oriented. * Scandal-plagued, far-right Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is willing to fight to support formaldehyde, no matter what EPA scientists think. * A right-wing House member admits to ignoring the law on completing Census forms. * The president's and vice president's tax returns are open to public review. * Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) doesn't mind sympathizing with terrorists. He does mind if you point this out to him. * It's a stretch to say where you go to college is irrelevant. * Um, CBS? Why are you publishing un-sourced gossip from Ben Domenech? * I'm so glad to see the CBPP finally launch a blog. I'm a huge CBPP fan, I've been wanting them to do this for a while. * Remember, a Republican lie doesn't have to make sense; it doesn't have to withstand scrutiny; it doesn't even have to be persuasive. It just has to be repeated. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
BAIR REJECTS MCCONNELL TALKING POINTS.... Finding a credible figure who agrees with Senate Republican talking points on Wall Street reform is proving to be very difficult. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is not only lying, he's doing so in such a way as to make it obvious. Consider FDIC Chair Sheila Bair's comments to American Banker yesterday:
Asked specifically if reform will end the "too big to fail" phenemenon, Bair told the truth: "I think it will go a long way." And who's Sheila Bair? She's not exactly a liberal activist -- she's a Bush/Cheney appointee to the FDIC, a former assistant Treasury secretary in the Bush administration, and a former aide to Bob Dole. I know the political world likes to put on airs, and pretend that it's impolite to expose a high-ranking official as a dishonest hack. But this week, no one wants to defend Mitch McConnell's abject nonsense. —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
WALL STREET REFORM EFFORT HEATING UP.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sounded impatient when he told reporters today that he's moving forward with legislation on financial regulatory reform. "We have talked about this enough. We have negotiated this enough," Reid said, adding that the Senate may vote as early as next week. For his part, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) had another stemwinder on the Senate floor today. If you thought Dodd was visibly frustrated yesterday, check out his remarks today. The senator seems to have grown pretty tired of Republicans' nonsense on the legislation, and I can't say I blame him. Speaking of Republicans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who seems desperate to kill the Democratic bill because, well, it's a Democratic bill, is trying to secure 41 solid commitments from his GOP caucus to prevent a debate of the legislation. His office is reportedly circulating a letter in the hopes of filibustering the motion to proceed on the bill (in effect, McConnell wants to not only prevent a vote on Wall Street reform, he also wants to prevent a debate). At this point, however, McConnell is having some trouble locking down complete unanimity from his caucus. It's unclear exactly how many signatures he has on the circulating letter, but he has reportedly "fallen short of the 41 signatures he needs," at least for now. While McConnell keeps trying to shut down the process, at least one Republican senator seems to expect some GOP members to sign onto the Democratic bill. Tennessee's Bob Corker (R) told ABC News this morning that he'd be "stunned if we do not reach a bipartisan agreement." He added, "[A]t the end of the day, I think we're going to have a solid bipartisan effort." Helping drive the process is the fact that Democrats are being unusually aggressive of late, practically daring Republicans to get in the way. If the GOP backs down, Dems get the bill they want. If the GOP prefers obstructionism, Dems believe they'll have a political weapon they'll use to undermine Republicans on a key issue. Hill aides told Brian Beutler "that they'd relish the prospect of putting Republicans on the side of big banks in opposition to reg reform." This is, in other words, an example of lessons learned. During the health care debate, Dems kept pleading with Republicans to play a constructive role. Democrats delayed the process for months, making concessions and accepting compromises, all in the hopes that a Republican or two might be willing to negotiate in good faith. The efforts were wasteful and counter-productive, and Dems aren't willing to endure the same mess. Sources close to the process suggest the White House is telling Senate Dems they're doing the right thing. Rather than signaling a willingness to tolerate more GOP nonsense, the West Wing is telling Reid & Co. to keep moving forward, whether Republicans like it or not. —Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
FALLING UP.... I'm tempted to start keeping a running list of unlikely electoral candidates this year -- folks who seem intent on parlaying failure into seeking higher office. The latest in David Malpass, who announced yesterday that he'll run in the Republican Senate primary in New York, in the hopes of taking on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in November. Malpass' claim to fame isn't exactly the kind of thing one should use as the basis for a statewide campaign.
If Malpass is serious about his candidacy, this might be tough to overcome. But it's the larger pattern that impresses me. * Rob Portman was the budget director Bush/Cheney at a time when the federal budget was something of a disaster, and the administration was arguably the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the country. Portman is now running for the Senate in Ohio. * Tim Griffin was a Karl Rove protege caught up in the U.S. Attorney scandal. He's now running for a House seat in Arkansas. * Rick Scott was the head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company that got caught up in a massive fraud scandal in the 1990s. Scott's firm later pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, agreed to pay $1.7 billion in fines, and Scott was forced to resign. He later financed a right-wing lobbying group that misled the country on health care policy. Scott is now running for governor in Florida. In the real world, when someone fails on a spectacular level, he/she tends not to seek a promotion. I wonder why Republicans don't get this. I'm probably missing some notable figures who belong on the list. Readers should feel encouraged to let me know who I've forgotten. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was asked for his opinion yesterday on the financial regulatory reform bill advancing in the Senate. "I can't support it,'' he said. Explaining why, the Republican said one of his main concerns is that the legislation is "going to be an extra layer of regulation." Which is, of course, true. That's the point of the legislation. The financial industry went unchecked and nearly destroyed the global economy. That's why the legislation is being considered -- to bring oversight and accountability through regulation. What was especially interesting, though, is hearing the confused senator try to explain how he'd like to see the legislation improve. (thanks to reader R.L.)
To clarify, when the senator asked "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed?" he was talking to a reporter who wanted to know what kind of changes he hoped to see. Brown went on to say that he finds the notion of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency problematic because "it's more government." He added, "Is that good? ... If it's an area we need to fix, then I'm certainly open to it. But I haven't heard that that's the biggest thing that's problematic with it.'' Do you ever get the feeling that maybe Scott Brown isn't quite ready for prime-time, and that his service in the Senate is more humiliating than it should be? —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)
GREGG AND THE FORGOTTEN PRETENSE OF SERIOUSNESS.... The tax cuts of the Bush era, which contributed greatly to Republicans adding $5 trillion to the national debt, are due to expire. Policymakers are currently weighing what to do about it. Part of the answer seems obvious -- both parties want to extend the cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year or individuals earning less than $200,000. But what about the costly breaks for those at the very top?
For a variety of reasons, this isn't exactly a compelling position. Gregg may be sticking to it, but it's only a reminder of how he approaches these issues in a fundamentally unserious way. Look, I know Gregg has a lot invested in having voted for the failed economic policies of the previous administration, but Bush's tax cuts didn't work. For eight years, the job market was weak and wages were stagnant. Gregg and his cohorts promised tremendous economic growth -- the kind we had under Clinton/Gore when, you know, taxes were higher -- which never materialized. Given this, Gregg's credibility is already dubious, at best. But the circumstances also matter. When Bush/Cheney slashed taxes with Gregg's help, the deficit was gone, surpluses were huge, and the United States was on track to pay off its debt. Eight years of failure later, Obama/Biden inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and a $10 trillion debt. It's in this context that Gregg wants to keep "all" of Bush's tax cuts. How would he pay for this? "Repeal the health care bill for starters," Gregg proposed. But this is incoherent -- the Affordable Care Act lowers the deficit, while the tax cuts increase the deficit. Gregg can't use the former to pay for the latter -- it defies arithmetic. If he repeals the health care bill "for starters," that makes the budget shortfall worse, not better. Gregg's solution is gibberish. As Jon Chait explained, "[E]ven the most allegedly committed Republican deficit hawks propose a larger deficit than Obama's budget. Oh, sure, they have unspecified talk about cutting the deficit, but then, so does Obama. Their only specific difference is a plan to make the deficit even higher. Right now, that's the only real fiscal difference between the two parties." —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
THE RIGHT STILL DENIES SLURS FROM HCR PROTEST.... It's been nearly a month, but the far-right obsession continues. It's getting embarrassing. On March 20, House Democratic leaders walked from a caucus meeting to Capitol Hill, en route to the final debate over health care reform. As the lawmakers approached the building, assorted right-wing activists chastised Dems, reportedly used racial and ethnic slurs, and in one instance, spat on an African-American lawmaker. Prominent far-right voices have gone to truly ridiculous lengths to insist that the slurs never happened. Conservatives apparently can't help themselves. James Taranto, a Republican writer at the Wall Street Journal, got in touch with Rep Heath Shuler's office after the North Carolina Democrat expressed his disappointment to a local newspaper over the ugliness of the right-wing, mid-March protests.
Greg Sargent added, "Okay, so yes, someone at the Tea Party rally did call Barney Frank a 'communist faggot,' but the racial slurs remain unproven! So there: The liberal media's efforts to smear the Tea Party movement as a hotbed of intolerants and bigots has been conclusively debunked!" If there's any sense in this strategy, it eludes me. Even far-right members of Congress see no value in pushing this line of attack. House Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said, "I take at face value what John Lewis said. If John Lewis said he heard it, I believe he's a man of integrity. And I would denounce those kinds of statements in the strongest possible terms." That's really all conservatives have to say to put this matter behind them. Instead of accusing John Lewis and other black lawmakers of lying, conservative activists like Taranto, Andrew Breitbart, and Mark Steyn have a far more sensible alternative. They can say, "We didn't hear the racist slurs, but if they occurred, we reject them entirely. Those misguided individuals don't speak for our movement, and there's no room for bigotry in the Tea Party." But, no. Instead the message, in effect, is, "Don't trust those black Democrats. They say they heard racism, but they're probably lying." What's more, they keep saying this. Taranto's piece didn't run in March; it ran yesterday. It's as if the right believes if they just keep accusing African-American lawmakers of being liars, the allegations of racist rhetoric will disappear. Usually, the right is more adept when it comes to political rhetoric. This is just bizarre. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * While the Republican establishment rallies to support Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson's Senate campaign, Sen. Jim Bunning (R) is throwing his support to right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul. * In Florida, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Marco Rubio with a 23-point lead over Charlie Crist in their Republican Senate primary, 56% to 33%. If, however, Crist runs as an independent, he narrowly leads the three-way field. * On a related note, Crist's campaign manager didn't rule out the possibility that the governor would exit the GOP primary and run as an independent. * David Malpass, best known for his work as Bear Stearns' former chief global economist, has decided to take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in New York this year. Malpass, who has never held elected office, will run in the GOP primary. * Speaking of the Empire State, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino will not drop out of the race, despite reports this week about his racist and explicit emails. * The latest poll out of Pennsylvania shows Pat Toomey (R) leading Sen. Arlen Specter (D) in a hypothetical Senate match-up, 48% to 38%. * The latest poll out of Arkansas shows the Democratic Senate field growing increasingly competitive, with incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln leading her chief primary rival, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, by only seven points, 38% to 31%. * Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) is still the favorite to win the open Senate contest this year, but his campaign is hitting some speed-bumps. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (3)
ANOTHER DOCTOR PUTS POLITICS AHEAD OF PATIENTS.... In general, Americans hold physicians in very high regard. When Gallup recently polled all of the various entities involved in the health care debate, insurance companies fared the worst, but doctors fared the best -- by a considerable margin. This makes sense, of course. Most Americans have had personal experiences with physicians who've not only treated our ailments, but who've earned a great deal of respect. It's what makes it all the more striking when an ostensible medical professional puts Republican politics ahead of patient care. Dr. Jack Cassell, an Orlando-area urologist and part-time Republican crank, became a national laughing stock a couple of weeks ago when he announced that patients who support President Obama should seek medical attention elsewhere. Cassell later conceded he doesn't really know anything about the health care reform law he hates so much. Now, apparently, there's another. Ben Armbruster reports:
Seriously. The dermatologist said government-prescribed treatment methods are causing him so much anxiety, he won't be able to practice medicine. "The stress is what would push me out the door," Scherzer said. He added that some medical professionals "have actually committed suicide over these things." As a factual matter, no one seems to be able to figure exactly which government-prescribed treatment methods he's so worked up about, since the law doesn't mandate any specific methods at all. Indeed, if the Affordable Care Act were going to cause any undue hardships for medical professionals, it wouldn't have been endorsed by the American Medical Association. Doctors, by and large, have certainly earned their exalted status in society, but that doesn't mean there aren't a few bizarre apples in the bunch. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)
WHY NEBRASKA'S NEW ABORTION LIMITS MATTER.... In Nebraska this week, Gov. Dave Heineman (R) signed a law mandating sweeping new restrictions on abortion. The state law bans most abortions mid-way through the second trimester, and was apparently intended to limit the medical practice of one man, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who is one of the region's only physicians to treat women in need of third-trimester abortions. But what makes Nebraska's new effort especially noteworthy is the basis for the new law. The state's restrictions are predicated on the notion of "fetal pain" -- a national first -- which lawmakers set at 20 weeks gestation. Amanda Marcotte considers the implications of such a measure.
Several legal experts this week predicted Nebraska's new statute will not fare well in the courts. Something to keep an eye on. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
TAX DAY.... It's April 15, so there's likely to be a little more attention paid to tax rates today, especially in the political world. House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is trying to make this as awkward a day for Democrats as possible, as evidenced by his shameless lying on the House floor about taxes. But before anyone assumes this will be a bad day for Democrats, the majority party has been pushing very aggressively the last several days to turn the assumptions on their head. For example, this AP piece, noting that "Americans are paying lower taxes this year" is making the rounds.
The White House has been pushing a similar line, starting a few days ago with President Obama's weekly address, and continued today with a message from White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer emphasizing the same point: "Providing significant relief to help working families has been a central focus of the President's agenda since the day he took office - and today, many more Americans will take advantage of those benefits as they complete their returns." Perceptions, to be sure, are skewed. Because our discourse is often ridiculous, most Americans don't know Congress and the president cut their taxes (and certainly don't know that Republicans voted en masse against the tax cuts). But whether they've gotten political credit or not, Dems have cut taxes for 98% of working families. Those protesting the notion that they're "taxed enough already" have chosen, once again, to ignore reality: "[T]he non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reported on Wednesday that 'Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels.' How low? The average family of four right now is paying 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes -- the second lowest percentage in 50 years." Those middle-class Americans motivated to get involved in politics because of taxes should not only be praising Dems, but should also wonder right about now why Republicans have fought so hard against the Democrats' tax breaks. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
GOP WORKING ON NEW 'CONTRACT'.... Sixteen years ago, congressional Republicans hoped to capture majorities on the Hill, and released a poll-tested list of priorities that appeared first in TV Guide. It was called the "Contract With America." Opinions vary as to its efficacy -- I tend to think the "contract" was largely irrelevant, since most Americans hadn't heard of it when they voted -- but in Republican circles, it's taken on mythical status. Newt Gingrich and pollsters created the document, and GOP candidates won their new majorities in the '94 midterms, therefore the "Contract With America" worked. This year, Republicans hope to recreate the identical circumstances, this time with a new list. It's slow going.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are apparently pushing for a detailed list of specific pieces of legislation that a GOP majority would pass if elected. The rank-and-file caucus members aren't sure, in part because they may have to withhold endorsements of the new "contract" if they disagree with some of its tenets. There's also a concern that policy specifics would make it easier for Dems to criticize. But the leadership apparently wants more than slogans. "Responsible leadership requires the development of serious and deliverable solutions to the real problems facing families, small businesses and workers," Cantor's spokesperson said. That's a nice sentiment, to be sure, but I have to wonder if Cantor's office has thought this one through. Republicans don't have "serious and deliverable solutions" to "real problems." The GOP generally doesn't even try to come up with "serious and deliverable solutions" to "real problems." Republicans tend to mock those who develop "serious and deliverable solutions" to "real problems." But if they're willing to give it a shot, best of luck to them. Given congressional Republicans' recent track record -- their numberless budget plan, their ridiculous health care plan, Paul Ryan's indefensible "Roadmap" -- these guys tend to fall on their face when they try to come up with any kind of policy proposal, but maybe this time will be different. We may not see a formal document until September. Something to look forward to. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
A CONFUSED GROUP OF MISLED PEOPLE.... A new New York Times/CBS News poll was released last night, taking a closer look at those who identify with the so-called Tea Party "movement." The results confirm much of what we already know -- this is a confused contingent of conservative white people older than 45 -- but there were a few interesting tidbits. Tea Partiers are obviously not part of the American mainstream. Its activists are to the right of the Republican Party, they have favorable opinions of George W. Bush, and rely heavily on Fox News. They don't like health care reform, worry about government spending, and think the government does too much to address the problems of the African-American community. For all the recent talk about Dems and independents connecting with the right-wing movement, Tea Partiers "usually or almost always vote Republican." And for all the hullabaloo about the groups' rallies, only 4% of the general public has "given money or attended a Tea Party event, or both." But the kicker is the predictable limits of the extreme ideology.
The point, of course, is not to pick on one confused person who sounded foolish when put on the spot. The point is Jodine White of Rocklin, Calif., is fairly representative of the larger movement. If you were to make a Venn Diagram of the issues Tea Party members care about, and the issues Tea Party members are confused about, you'd only see one circle. These folks claim to be motivated by concerns over taxes, but Tea Partiers tend not to know anything about the subject. They claim to be angry about the Affordable Care Act, but they don't know what's in it. They claim to hate expensive government programs, except for all the expensive government programs that benefit them and their families. It's inherently challenging to create a lasting, successful political movement predicated on literally nothing more than ignorance and rage. In the case of Tea Partiers, we're talking about a reasonably large group of people who seem to revel in their own ignorance, but nevertheless seek an active role in the process. Following up on an item from a few weeks ago, this is important to the extent that there are still some who believe the political mainstream should do more to listen to the Tea Party crowd and take its hysterical cries seriously. But how can credible people take nonsense seriously and hope to come up with a meaningful result? How can policymakers actually address substantive challenges while following the advice of angry mobs who reject reason and evidence? The bottom line seem inescapable: Tea Party activists have no idea what they're talking about. Their sincerity notwithstanding, this is a confused group of misled people. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (76)
MITCH MCCONNELL'S LIE IS OFF TO A ROUGH START.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants people to believe that the pending financial-regulation reform bill would lead to "more bailouts." Mitch McConnell is lying. To be sure, we know why he's lying -- Democrats have a popular piece of legislation, and if it passes, voters might be pleased. McConnell can't have that, so he's making up nonsense, hoping just enough people won't know the difference. But the pushback he received yesterday was pretty fierce. Among Democrats, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) was unusually incensed, while Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) all but called him a liar on the Senate floor. Even Republicans were reluctant to rally behind McConnell's absurdities. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) characterized the new argument as "a touch over the top." Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) compared McConnell's pitch to "death panel" rhetoric. The Maine moderates -- Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- pretended not to know what McConnell had said so they wouldn't have to defend it. Even the media seemed unwilling to play along with McConnell's willful ignorance. CNBC's John Harwood told MSNBC that McConnell's anti-reform argument is "a little silly when you look at the text of the bill." And perhaps most importantly, Capitol Hill reporters pressed the Kentuckian on the fact that his bizarre opposition to reform comes on the heels of a private meeting McConnell attended last week with hedge fund managers and other Wall Street elites last week.
Now, if recent history is any guide, this may not matter. Mitch McConnell is lying. He knows he's lying, as does anyone with even a passing familiarity with the issue. But as we know, the lie doesn't have to make sense; it doesn't have to withstand scrutiny; it doesn't even have to be persuasive. It just has to be repeated, endorsed by conservative media, embraced by right-wing activists whose ignorance is easily exploited, and folded into the "debate" for the American mainstream. Time will tell if McConnell will succeed on this front, but if yesterday was any indication, he's off to a shaky start. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
April 14, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * China earthquake kills at least 589 people. * More green shoots: "Retail sales rose for the third straight month in March as better weather and auto incentives brought out shoppers in force. The rise was more than economists had expected. It's the latest sign that consumer spending is rising fast enough to support a modest economic recovery." * U.S. forces leave Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. * Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) eyes derivatives, which is an issue of increasing significance to Democrats in both chambers. * Democratic Senate centrists aren't in any hurry to tackle immigration reform. * Absolutely fantastic piece from University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone on conservatives, liberals, and judicial philosophy. * Don't buy the nonsense that 47% of American households owe no taxes. * I'm still amazed that someone of Jon Kyl's limited skills, knowledge, intellect, and awareness of current events can rise to be the #2 Republican in the U.S. Senate. * John McCain gives new meaning to the phrase "trigger happy." * Hmm: "California's attorney general on Tuesday launched a probe into the finances of a state university foundation and the alleged dumping of documents related to Sarah Palin's upcoming speech at the school." * The House's two most ridiculous members agree to share a right-wing press secretary to push their deranged arguments. * George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State, rejects GOP talking points and praises President Obama's nuclear strategy. * Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) thinks the White House's agenda is "un-American." What a pathetic clown. * Ted Frier draws an interesting parallel between Wall Street and the Titanic ... which was also too big to fail. * More evidence that the recession is leading students to community colleges. * It seems Breitbart is making a habit of releasing deceptive videos. * I had a chance to work with Alex Koppelman a bit at Salon and I've long considered him an astute observer and class act. Best wishes to him in his new endeavors. * Similarly, I'm sorry to see Jonathan Cohn close up The Treatment, which I found invaluable throughout the debate over health care reform. * President Obama held a news conference late yesterday as the nuclear summit came to a close. Fox News interrupted its coverage to air Glenn Beck's show. Amazing. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
DODD STOPS BEING POLITE, AND STARTS GETTING REAL.... "The door is still open" to finding bipartisan common ground on a financial-regulation bill, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said. "But my patience is running out.
Dodd didn't literally call Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor, but he came awfully close. —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
CONSERVATIVES PONDER A GAY SUPREME COURT NOMINEE.... About a year ago, before Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, there was some discussion about how the right would respond if President Obama chose a gay jurist to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The discussion is once again underway in some circles, but it's not improving. Last May, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he'd be open to a nominee with "gay tendencies." A spokesperson for Focus on the Family told Greg Sargent that sexual orientation need not be a deciding factor. "The issue is not their sexual orientation. It's whether they are a good judge or not," the FOTF spokesperson said. A nominee's sexual orientation "should never come up. It's not even pertinent to the equation." It was an encouraging development. Even if Focus was being disingenuous -- and I believe it was -- the fact that a group spokesperson would make these comments on the record was heartening. Even for a right-wing group, there was a sense that nominees should be evaluated on the merits. It reflected a growing maturity in our discourse. That maturity has since disappeared. Focus on the Family has now "clarified" the group's position, explaining that it would oppose a gay nominee, regardless of his or her qualifications, because gay people are immoral. Focus' Tom Minnery told an anti-gay activist this week:
As for the sane, responsible remarks a Focus spokesperson said last May, Focus on the Family now believes it would like a "do over" on those comments. They were, apparently, far too sensible. —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
CALLING OUT MCCONNELL'S WILLFUL IGNORANCE.... Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) isn't especially partisan or ideological. He's not known for angry rhetoric or picking fights. So when he calls out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for being a deceptive hack, it carries some weight. Warner personally helped shape the provisions in the financial-regulation bill on responding to the threats posed by too-big-to-fail firms. So, when McConnell, parroting a baseless strategy memo written by a GOP pollster, said the legislation would mean "endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks," Warner took it kind of personally. The centrist Virginian told Ezra Klein that it "appears" that McConnell "either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand the basic underlying premise of what this bill puts in place."
"If you haven't spent time with these issues," Warner concluded, "it's easy to pop off with sound-bite solutions that don't work." The ongoing debate can continue over whether senators like McConnell are embarrassingly ignorant or shameless hacks, but given what we've seen of late, it's not unreasonable for the political world to consider the notion that the Senate Minority Leader doesn't have the foggiest idea what's going in public policy. —Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
MAYBE O'REILLY NEEDS NEW RESEARCHERS.... Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma recently told a group of constituents not to let Fox News warp their sense of current events. "[D]on't catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody is no good," the senator said, among other things. The comments were not, as one might imagine, well received at the Republican cable network. Bill O'Reilly spoke to Coburn directly last night, and told the conservative senator that some of his allegations are incorrect.
Maybe O'Reilly needs new "researchers." November 13, 2009: Glenn Beck tells Fox News' audience that those without coverage will "go to jail." November 12, 2009: Beck said "there will be jail time" for those who refuse to participate in the health care system. November 9, 2009: Dick Morris argues, "One of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance." November 10, 2009: Sean Hannity tells viewers, "Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance, uh, jail time, a possibility?" October 7, 2009: Greta Van Susteren says it's "theoretically possible" that if "you can't afford insurance for whatever reason" the government could "send you to jail." November 10, 2009: The on-screen graphic during Fox & Friends tells viewers during a segment on the health care debate: "Comply or go to jail." Remember, O'Reilly promised Coburn, "[W]e researched to find out if anybody [on Fox News] had ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it." O'Reilly does realize that it's not that difficult to search Fox News transcripts, doesn't he? —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
MCDONNELL'S FREQUENT DETOURS.... In Virginia, the policy for non-violent felons hoping to have their voting rights restored has been stringent, but straightforward: they had to fill out some paperwork. The state's surprisingly-inept new governor, Bob McDonnell (R), recently created a new requirement: the ex-cons had to write an essay, highlighting their "contributions to society" since their release. It was, in effect, a modern-day literacy test for a group of citizens hoping to vote in the commonwealth. The Virginia Black Legislative Caucus was right to call the move "a horrific step back towards the era of Jim Crow." This week, McDonnell's administration said the letters to felons explaining their need to write essays were sent by mistake.
There's still a possibility that McDonnell will decide to require personal essays, but at this point, it seems that the governor is wisely backing down. Adam Serwer notes the apparent trend:
Now if only McDonnell would stop taking absurd steps to begin with, he'll have less of a need to keep reversing course. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
STILL ROOTING FOR FAILURE.... The first few months of the Obama presidency were marked by a depressing far-right development -- in the midst of multiple crises, high-profile conservatives publicly admitted they wanted to see the president's efforts to help the country fail. The rhetoric was fairly new for the American mainstream. While any president's detractors tend to think his policies will fail, this president's detractors went further, wishing that things go poorly for the United States. It runs against certain American norms to actively, publicly hope that the nation's fortunes take a turn for the worse. That these same folks claim to have the high ground on "patriotism" made this all the more ridiculous. In time, these far-right voices moved on to other unhinged campaigns, but the root-for-failure tendencies have not disappeared altogether. Matt Corley flags this exchange between Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and radio host Scott Hennen, aired yesterday:
Got it. President Obama has policies intended to help the economy, improve our national security, make quality health care more affordable and accessible, resolve the housing crisis, improve our existing energy policies, etc. Maybe those policies will be effective, maybe not. If they have the intended effect, we'll have a safer, more prosperous future. It's fascinating, then, to see right-wing Republicans, including some currently in Congress, bypass the debate over the policies' efficacy and go directly to rooting against the country. I don't remember any similar dynamic existing with any other modern president. This is such a simple concept, even Bachmann should be able to understand it: Americans should not root for America to fail. It represents literally the bare minimum of civic pride. When Republicans hate their president more than they love their country, there's a problem. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * The latest CNN poll shows Democrats leading Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, 50% to 46%. The latest Gallup poll shows Republicans leading Democrats on the generic congressional ballot, 48% to 44%. That ought to clear things up. * Former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) will reportedly not take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) this year. Gillibrand's election prospects are now greatly improved -- no credible Republican wants to face her -- and Pataki appears likely to run for president in 2012. * Texas Republicans chose two more congressional candidates yesterday -- former oil executive Bill Flores will take on Rep. Chet Edwards (D), while Quico Canseco will face Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D). * Might Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-Pa.) strategy of a "truncated campaign" against Sen. Arlen Specter in a Democratic primary work? Maybe. Most recent polling shows the incumbent ahead by comfortable margins, but Rasmussen now shows Specter's lead down to just two points, 44% to 42%. * Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, the leading Republican Senate candidate this year, has proven herself to be surprisingly right-wing, but even she's not willing to commit to a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act. * Just a day after anti-reform activist Rick Scott launched a gubernatorial primary campaign against state Attorney General Bill McCollum in Florida, McCollum is welcoming Scott to the race by going after Scott's scandalous background. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
MISSISSIPPI COUNTY FACES DESEGREGATION ORDER.... It's 2010, and this is still a problem.
"More than 55 years after Brown v. Board of Education, it is unacceptable for school districts to act in a way that encourages or tolerates the resegregation of public schools," said Thomas E. Perez, U.S. assistant attorney general in charge of the civil rights division, in a written statement. "We will take action so that school districts subject to federal desegregation orders comply with their obligation to eliminate vestiges of separate black and white schools." It's a reminder that it's good to have a functioning civil rights division in the Justice Department again. It's also worth noting that the country is still addressing setbacks when it comes to civil rights. As DougJ noted, the Mississippi matter comes on the heels of controversial Confederacy-related comments from two Southern Republican governors. The arc of history may be long, and it may bend towards justice, but it's not a straight line pointing in an encouraging direction. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
A TALE OF TWO FAILED PLOTS.... Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was at the center of a terrorist plot to kill Americans last year. Najibullah Zazi was at the center of a terrorist plot to kill Americans last year. Both targeted U.S. transportation -- Abdulmutallab intended to attack on a plane, Zazi on a New York subway -- and both, fortunately, were thwarted and taken into custody. The former became the subject of intense media interest, heated political debate, and far-right apoplexy. The latter has been largely ignored, especially by conservatives. Kevin Drum wonders why.
The disconnect is interesting, isn't it? Zazi, who was reportedly close to executing the worst domestic terrorist attack since 9/11, was treated the same way all suspected terrorists taken into U.S. custody are treated -- law enforcement prevented the attack, arrested the suspect, read him his rights, gave him a lawyer, charged him, and put him behind bars. This should, in theory, outrage Republicans, right? GOP official don't believe counter-terrorism is a law enforcement issue, don't want suspected terrorists to be treated like criminals, and don't want them to be imprisoned on American soil. So why would the right stay silent? I suspect it's because the Zazi case makes the Obama administration look fantastic, and conservatives would just as soon hope that no American ever hears about the story at all. Indeed, this story is a classic example of the American system working to perfection, executed by officials who got everything right. A radical, al Qaeda-recruited terrorist and some accomplices were close to setting off deadly explosives in the two busiest subway stations in New York City. The consequences would have been devastating had they succeeded. Instead, federal officials learned of the plot, realized the attack was near, and prevented a catastrophe. Once in custody, the administration followed the rule of law and it worked wonders -- Zazi cooperated with authorities, provided valuable intelligence, and rolled over on his accomplices. There was no torture, no military commissions, no Gitmo. By any reasonable measure, from top to bottom, this was counter-terrorism working beautifully. The U.S. officials who made this happen are heroes. So, why aren't Republicans whining incessantly? Because that would shine a light on the case, and that's the last thing conservatives want. Conversely, why don't Democrats shine a light on the case, and maybe try to bring the story to the public's attention? Perhaps because, even now, Dems choose not to emphasize national security, even when it's a tremendous victory for a Democratic administration. —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
LIEBERMAN'S RHETORICAL PREFERENCES.... Members of the administration's National Security Council reportedly intend to move away from rhetoric such as "Islamic radicalism" when discussing national security strategy. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) talked to a far-right news outlet, Newsmax, about his concerns.
Putting aside the question of why Lieberman is chatting with Newsmax in the first place, the senator's concerns aren't exactly persuasive. Indeed, they're not exactly consistent, either. Two years ago this month, the Bush/Cheney administration launched a new effort to change the way U.S. officials communicated on this issue. In fact, Bush/Cheney issued guidelines, entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication," urging officials to stop describing extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," and to drop "Islamo-fascism" altogether. "It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo said in bold italic lettering. The memo was distributed widely by federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, explaining to U.S. officials at every level that the rhetoric preferred by far-right activists actually undermines our foreign policy and national security interests. Lieberman, at the time, wasn't complaining to conservative websites. The Connecticut senator has even positioned himself to the right of former Bush aides. Karen Hughes recently conceded, "We ought to avoid the language of religion. Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have." Lieberman thinks adopting smarter language "loses us some support in the Muslim world"? That's absurd. He's much closer to being right when he concedes he doesn't "understand it." —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
PERHAPS THE MOST INEXPLICABLE CANDIDATE OF THEM ALL.... I'm occasionally amazed at who's willing to run for public office. Rob Portman is running for the Senate in Ohio, despite his work as the head of the Bush/Cheney budget office. Dan Coats is running for the Senate in Indiana, despite having been a corporate bank lobbyist in D.C. for the last several years. Tim Griffin is running for a House seat in Arkansas, despite his controversial work for Karl Rove and role in the U.S. Attorney scandal. And while all of these candidacies strike me as inherently odd, arguably the most inexplicable of them all is Rick Scott's gubernatorial campaign in Florida.
Florida already has a very competitive GOP gubernatorial candidate -- state Attorney General Bill McCollum, who's actually leading in most polls -- but Scott believes he's not right-wing enough. And he has until August's primary to test the proposition. But the oddity here is why Rick Scott would seek public office in the first place. He is, after all, perhaps best known as the former head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company that got caught up in a massive fraud scandal in the 1990s. Scott's firm later pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, and agreed to pay $1.7 billion in fines, a record penalty for a health care company. The fines covered fraud perpetrated under Scott's watch, and he was forced out of his job as a result of the scandal. More recently, Scott used his personal fortune to hire the Swiftboat liars' p.r. firm, and proceeded to launch a breathtakingly deceptive right-wing ad campaign in opposition to health care reform. And now he wants to be Florida's chief executive. What a strange development. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT CONCLUDES WITH COMMITMENTS.... By most measures, the gathering in D.C. this week was a success. The United States received some key commitments it had sought on nuclear materials, and President Obama took another significant step in securing his leadership role on the global stage.
Gary Samore, the arms control and nonproliferation coordinator for the National Security Council, told reporters, "We used the summit shamelessly as a forcing event to ask countries to bring house gifts. Almost every country came with something new." They did, indeed. Ukraine and Chile are giving up their highly enriched uranium; Mexico will accept help in converting a research reactor to lower enriched fuel; Russia is shutting down its last plutonium-production reactor; and China at least expressed some willingness to move forward on new sanctions against Iran. In the larger sense, David Sanger explained that President Obama could claim two "major accomplishments" from the gathering: "The summit meeting forced countries that had failed to clean up their nuclear surpluses to formulate detailed plans to deal with them, and it kicked into action nations that had failed to move on previous commitments." As for the president himself, I seriously doubt the American public was following the summit details closely, and it's possible the developments will have no effect on his domestic standing at all. But those who were watching saw a president who took strides in demonstrating new levels of leadership on the global stage. Love him or hate him, it's hard to deny the notion that Obama is an engaging public figure with skills of political persuasion. This week, we saw the president put these skills to use, perhaps in earnest for the first time, with a large group of international leaders. The French ambassador to the United States noted of Obama, "He's in charge, he's chairing the meetings, and this is where his personality plays a big part. He does it very well. And he feels very comfortable doing it."
Obama is trying a new approach to global leadership -- and it's working. —Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
'REFERENDUM' FALLS FAR SHORT IN SPECIAL ELECTION.... It seemed like a good strategy at the time. With Robert Wexler (D) giving up his U.S. House seat in South Florida, a special election would offer conservatives a chance to create a "referendum" on the Obama presidency. After all, the election, held yesterday, would be the first since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, and Republicans could ride the wave of voter anger to an upset. Indeed, the Republican candidate, Ed Lynch, ran on a strictly anti-Obama platform, vowing to repeal the new health care law and railing against the recovery efforts that rescued the economy. Lynch sought to position himself as the "next Scott Brown." So, how'd that referendum turn out? The backlash against Democrats and the president propelled Lynch to a 26-point defeat.
"We've heard for months that tonight ... is a referendum on health care, it's a referendum on the (Obama) administration, it's a referendum on what direction this country is going," Deutch said last night. "Let me tell you something, what we learned today is that in Broward County and Palm Beach County, Florida, the Democratic Party is alive and well." Putting the race in the larger context, there have been six special elections for U.S. House seats since the president's inauguration 14 months ago: NY20, IL5, CA32, CA10, NY23, and FL19. Democrats have won all six. Rep.-elect Deutch will be sworn in fairly soon, and the House Democratic caucus will return to 254 members. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)
April 13, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Nuclear Security Summit: "The final communique of President Obama's nuclear summit would commit the 47 nations in attendance to secure all nuclear material in four years, according to a draft of the document obtained by The Washington Post." * Michelle Obama and Jill Biden make a surprise stop in Haiti. * In a surprise move, Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern is stepping down from his post, with significant repercussions for the labor movement. * Gen. Ray Odierno is leaving his post in Iraq, and will be succeeded by Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin. * Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sketched out his vision for what the Senate will work on over the next seven weeks. Immigration reform will have to wait until after Memorial Day. * Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) wants hearings to investigate the Upper Creek mining disaster. * In the meantime, Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship may have a problem with his shareholders. * And on a related note, Limbaugh thinks the union members at the mine should have done more -- not realizing this was a non-union mine. * Another step backwards for reproductive rights in Nebraska. * Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Republicans today to expect up-or-down votes on all of President Obama's judicial nominees * After evaluating Sarah Palin's remarks on nuclear arms, Fred Kaplan concludes she's a "total idiot." * When institutions of higher ed get more selective and less generous at the same time. * Conservatives won't like it, but the American mainstream wants the White House to care what international leaders think. * A nutty birther in the Army refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he thinks the president wasn't born in Hawaii, and * Ta-Nehisi Coates with the post of the day: "The Ghost of Bobby Lee." * Given the "You lie!" fiasco, it's always just a little more interesting when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) blatantly, shamelessly lies. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (69)
'IS IT SCARY? IT SURE IS'.... Conservatives in at least one state inch just a little closer to pure, mid-19th-century madness.
A constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma noted in response, "Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" The discussions about this armed force that would apparently resist U.S. officials were described by the AP as "exploratory." That's the good news, I guess. The bad news is these discussions between right-wing extremists, including some in the state legislature, have actually happened. Their vision, apparently, would be a privately-recruited militia, with the blessing of the state legislature, that would be armed and trained. Armed and trained by whom? The details are a little fuzzy. Nevertheless, one of the Republicans' gubernatorial candidates insisted that the 2nd Amendment authorizes states to create armed militias that would be available to confront the American government. The mind reels. —Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)
MCCONNELL FINDS HIS TALKING POINT.... Senate Republicans want to kill legislation intended to reform the way Wall Street operates, but aren't quite sure how to make this politically palatable. Americans still aren't fond of the financial industry -- its recklessness brought the global economy to its knees, and a lot of us hold a grudge -- and want to see reform. The GOP wants to deny Democrats a victory and help Wall Street, no matter the costs. What to do? The first step for Senate Republicans was to have a private meeting with elite hedge fund managers and other Wall Street executives. The second step was to make it seem like the Democratic proposal to clean up the industry is somehow pro-bailout.
Remember, it doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't even have to be persuasive. It just has to be repeated, endorsed by conservative media, embraced by right-wing activists whose ignorance is easily exploited, and folded into the "debate" for the American mainstream. Ezra Klein had a good piece evaluating the substance of McConnell's claim.
So, if McConnell's ultimate goal is to create an environment that would make the taxpayer-financed rescues a thing of the past forever -- and remember, McConnell voted for the industry bailout in October 2008 -- he'd have to endorse some pretty extreme steps. And that, of course, is the punch-line: McConnell opposes these extreme steps to prevent future bailouts and opposes any legislation that might lead to future bailouts. It is, in other words, another classic example of why Mitch McConnell and a few too many of his GOP colleagues simply aren't serious about public policy. Their positions are crafted to win p.r. fights, not shape effective laws. In this case, McConnell's new talking points have been shaped, almost word for word, by a strategy memo published by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. It's easier than thinking. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
WHEN THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD LEADS.... President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit is ongoing in Washington, with the U.S. president playing host to 47 world leaders in "the largest gathering of world leaders arranged by a U.S. president since FDR set up the 1945 meeting leading to the United Nations." On some fronts -- including progress with China on Iranian sanctions and a Ukrainian decision on highly enriched uranium -- it appears that the summit is already paying "early dividends." The New America Foundation's Steve Clemons takes this further, praising Obama's "calculated subtlety and strategic depth."
A lot of developments have unfolded very quickly, starting with the breakthrough on a new arms treaty with Russia, followed by the Nuclear Posture Review, followed by this week's successes during the Nuclear Security Summit. The result, Clemons noted, is a White House "mending the foundation and infrastructure of a global nonproliferation regime" Republicans of the Bush/Cheney era "worked hard to tear down."
In a political context, I realize this isn't the kind of thing that will give Obama a bump in the polls. The vast majority of Americans almost certainly won't even hear about the president's deft leadership on the nuclear front. But history will likely recognize this as a time when the United States, at long last, began to reassert its leadership role on the global stage, making us safer in the process. —Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
MASSA'S GONE, ENSIGN'S A SITTING SENATOR.... The Washington Post is promoting its latest scoop today about former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.), who resigned from Congress last month.
To be sure, this sounds extremely damaging for the former lawmaker. The Post appears to have conducted a very thorough investigation, drawing on "more than two dozen interviews and internal documents." Indeed, the Washington Post has, by most measures, been exceedingly interested in the Massa story for several weeks now. According to a Nexis search, the newspaper has run 26 stories that mention Eric Massa since March 1. Some of those articles were Style-section pieces that mentioned Massa in passing, but most are substantive news stories -- some on the front page -- about his alleged misconduct. Now, let's contrast this coverage with the Post's reporting on Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who is the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation into his humiliating sex-ethics-corruption scandal. While the paper has run 26 stories that mention Massa since March 1, it's run 12 stories that mention Ensign since Jan. 1 -- and only five deal with his scandal. The Post's editorial board has only mentioned Ensign once during that time, and that was to praise him for supporting public funding of private schools. The Post is heavily invested in researching a scandal involving a former House member, but it's choosing to ignore a scandal involving sitting senator. Massa drew scrutiny from the House ethics committee; Ensign is being investigated by the FBI. If the allegations surrounding Massa are true, there's not much that can be done -- he's already resigned in disgrace. If the allegations surrounding Ensign are true, a sitting senator will have to resign and will likely have to go on trial. If this were the Washington Times, it'd be easier to understand. But as it stands, the difference in the Post's coverage of the Massa and Ensign controversies is just bizarre. We're talking about a controversy featuring a sitting senator's adulterous affair, plus alleged ethics violations, hush money, and official corruption. An ongoing FBI investigation appears to be heating up, and by some accounts, expanding, and yet, the Post is still digging into Eric Massa? —Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
THIESSEN'S BAD ADVICE.... Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, now a Washington Post columnist, tore himself away from misleading arguments in defense of torture, and is now pressing Republicans on repealing the Affordable Care Act. In his latest piece, Thiessen complains that "Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress" -- I guess some silly talking points never get old -- and expresses his concern that "some Republicans are losing their nerve on repeal."
The rest of the column reads a bit like a caricature of predictable far-right palaver. Thiessen uses the word "Obamacare" seven times; he warns of Democrats trying to "transform our country in the image of Europe"; and he urges Republicans to simply follow the strategy presented by disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. After all, he "led the successful Republican takeover of Congress before." As Thiessen sees it, all Republican candidates have to do is promise to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, including the parts Americans like. Then, there will be a GOP majority in both chambers. When President Obama vetoes their attempts to turn back the clock, Republicans will win the White House in 2012 and everything will be wonderful again. Please. I can only hope there's a Post editor somewhere with his head in his palms, saying, "Why are we paying this guy for columns?" There's no real point in debunking the entire ridiculous column, sentence by sentence, but I'll just emphasize one key element: Thiessen is convinced "most" of the ACA benefits "don't kick in until 2014," so Republicans will pay no price for promising to scrap the legislation immediately. But Thiessen's wrong -- this year, the Affordable Care Act extends all kinds of new consumer protections to millions of American families, creates new tax breaks for small businesses, offers new coverage for children, restricts rescission policies, eliminates annual and lifetime caps, prohibits arbitrary premium increases, and new coverage for preventative care, among other things. Thiessen is absolutely convinced that Americans will applaud Republicans for promising to get rid of all of this a year from now. There's a very good reason Democrats are anxious to see them try. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * It's Election Day in Florida's 19th congressional district, where voters will elect a new House member to replace former Rep. Robert Wexler (D). * Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have a combined $20 million in their campaign coffers. Since all three are retiring, their party wants that money. * New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) has not yet announced whether he'll run for governor, but a new Quinnipiac poll shows him with considerable leads over the top GOP candidates. * On a related note, the same poll shows Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) easily defeating Bruce Blakeman (R), but trailing former Gov. George Pataki (R), who has not yet announced his 2010 plans. * In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) Senate campaign has a tough new ad airing this week, connecting Marco Rubio to in-state corruption. * The latest SurveyUSA poll in Kentucky shows state Attorney General Jack Conway closing the gap against Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo in the Democratic Senate primary, while Rand Paul leads Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the Republican primary, 45% to 30%. * Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign unveiled a new web video yesterday mocking primary challenger J.D. Hayworth as something of a lunatic. * Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) will be in Boston tomorrow for another right-wing Tea Party event. Organizers encouraged Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to attend, but he declined. * Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks Republicans have the "momentum" in the 2010 elections -- and he considers that great news. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
ZAZI PLOT DETAILS EMERGE.... For all the talk about Abdulmutallab's unsuccessful terrorist plot on Christmas, I continue to think the Najibullah Zazi case is an under-appreciated victory for the United States. A deadly attack was thwarted; intelligence was collected; and justice was served. No torture, no military commissions, no need to stray from the legal process. The legal system was followed to the letter, and it not only worked beautifully, it saved a lot of lives. We learned more about the Zazi plot this week, and the details are chilling, to put it mildly.
A fourth man, who helped plan this intended attack, has been quietly arrested in Pakistan, following Zazi's cooperation with authorities. I realize conservatives don't want to talk about this story, which is probably why major media outlets aren't paying much attention to it. But that's a shame because when it comes to counter-terrorism, this is a big f'in deal. Here we had a serious terrorist threat -- arguably the most important since 9/11 -- and an al Qaeda recruit who was poised to kill a lot of people. Obama administration officials thwarted Zazi's plan, took him into custody, read him his rights, and gave him a lawyer. And the results couldn't have been better for the United States. Zazi will spend the rest of his life behind bars, but only after cooperating with federal officials and becoming a valuable source of intelligence. If Republicans really want to debate the efficacy of Obama's counter-terrorism policies, we can start right here. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
GOP LEADERS SHAMELESSLY COZY UP TO WALL STREET.... In politics, memories can be short, but Americans have not yet forgotten the fact that the financial industry's recklessness nearly collapsed the global economy. And yet, congressional Republicans can't stop trying to curry favor with the industry. Last month, it was House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) embarrassing himself. This month, it's his Senate counterparts.
It appears to have been rather shameless -- Democrats, the GOP leaders said, are going to try to punish the irresponsible industry that caused the crash, and prevent similar crises from happening again. McConnell and Cornyn want to stop these efforts, and need the industry's help -- if Wall Street will work with Republicans, and elect a whole bunch of GOP candidates, the industry will be better off without all of those pesky regulations imposing oversight and accountability. McConnell and Cornyn, in other words, are going out of their way to characterize Republicans as the Party of Wall Street. It's an exceedingly odd strategy, given the larger landscape. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
TEA PARTY FAVE IN NY SENDS RACIST, EXPLICIT EMAILS.... In New York, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino has a habit of generating controversy. He recently insisted, for example, that the Affordable Care Act will be deadlier than the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But Paladino, a right-wing favorite of the Tea Party, now has an even bigger controversy to deal with.
That last one, sent last summer, shows an airplane landing behind a group of black men. The caption on the email reads, "Holy Sh*t. run ni**ers, run!" Paladino's campaign manager said the candidate "regrets" some of the messages, but blamed Democrats for trying to "smear" Paladino with emails Paladino sent. (No, I don't understand the argument either.) The far-right Republican yesterday also tried to blame Democrats for drawing attention to his own disgusting messages. The right-wing candidate is facing some GOP primary challengers, but Paladino has positioned himself to their right, and claims to be the only gubernatorial hopeful who "agrees 100 percent with conservative values." Of course, "values" is subjective -- Paladino, who is married, fathered a child with his mistress in the '90s. Nevertheless, the emails should effectively drive Paladino off the political stage. The head of New York's Democratic Party said in a statement that the emails "disqualify him completely from public service." —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
ISOLATING THE FAR-RIGHT ON NATIONAL SECURITY.... Some fairly prominent conservative voices have tried to characterize the Obama administration's recent efforts on nuclear arms -- a new treaty with Russia, a shift in the Nuclear Posture Review -- as some kind of radical and dangerous step. One right-wing member of Congress went so far as to suggest the moves were evidence of President Obama deliberately betraying the nation. It's been interesting, then, to see some GOP officials move in the other direction. Nicholas Burns, for example, served as undersecretary of state for political affairs in the Bush/Cheney administration*. Last week, Burns praised the Obama White House:
What's more, Christopher Ford served as U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation under George W. Bush. He told ABC News that he's not fully persuaded by Obama's Nuclear Posture Review, but conceded that the policy is better than he expected it to be.
It's a reminder of a larger dynamic we've seen repeatedly over the last year or so -- the major national security and foreign policy fights do not necessary pit left vs. right, or Democrats vs. Republicans. Rather, they pit the American mainstream against what's become of contemporary conservativism. In the case of nuclear policy, President Obama is being attacked by far-right personalities like Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and assorted right-wing members of Congress. The White House's approach has been endorsed, meanwhile, by the Secretary of Defense, the chairman and vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and top officials from the Bush and Reagan administrations. We've seen this same dynamic -- Obama and the mainstream vs. confused conservative clowns -- again and again, on everything from Iran to civilian trials to Gitmo to torture. And yet, we're apparently supposed to take Giuliani, Palin, and Gingrich seriously. * Clarification: For the record, Nicholas Burns worked in the Bush administration, but he is not, and has never been, a Republican. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
BLUNT'S CALLOUS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.... Of all the various elements of health care reform, perhaps the most popular were protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions. Before the Affordable Care Act, this group faced harsh penalties from insurers, either paying exorbitant rates, or finding themselves unable to find any coverage at all. Democratic policymakers corrected this, and even many Republicans have said they have no intention of reversing course on this. Missouri's Roy Blunt (R), however, has a unique approach to the issue. Here's what he told an ABC affiliate in Missouri last week: "Access for kids who have pre-existing conditions, who would be against that?" the House Republican said. "But access for adults, who have done nothing to take care of themselves, who actually will have, as I've just described, every incentive not to get insurance until the day that you know that you're going to have medical expenses, that's, that's a very different kind of story." So, as far as Roy Blunt is concerned, if you're an adult and you've overcome cancer, and you want health insurance, perhaps you should have taken better care of yourself. As for Blunt's reference to "incentives," he seems to be endorsing the individual mandate -- which he happens to oppose. Keep in mind, Blunt isn't some random back-bencher -- he's the chair of the House Republicans' Health Care Task Force. He's also in the midst of a very competitive Senate race in Missouri, where voters may find Blunt's callous, far-right line on health care -- he's also said Medicare never should have been created -- slightly problematic. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
SENATE BREAKS GOP FILIBUSTER ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.... About a month ago, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) blocked a vote on extending unemployment benefits, Medicare payments to doctors, and funding for highway projects. The ordeal quickly became farcical, and after five days, and under pressure from GOP leaders, Bunning relented and the bill passed. Senate Republicans apparently enjoyed the partisan clash because they hosted a sequel, blocking unemployment benefits again. Last night, the Senate broke the GOP filibuster.
The spending package, now very likely to pass, includes benefits for the unemployed (to be paid retroactively to cover the last week), payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients, COBRA subsidies, and funding for the National Flood Insurance Program. Passage this week would prevent another 200,000 unemployed Americans from losing their benefits. To overcome the GOP obstructionism, four Republicans broke party ranks to allow the Senate to vote up or down on the legislation: Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), and George Voinovich (Ohio). Republicans, led by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), insisted that they were waging this fight because the measure was deemed an emergency bill paid for by deficit financing. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said, "It's a question of whether we pay for it or we simply say, 'Put it on the tab for our kids and grandkids to pay for it.'" Kyl had no similar concerns when he supported asking our kids and grandkids to pay for the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Bush's tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind. He and his cohorts only seem troubled by deficits when it's the unemployed who might benefit. I wonder why that is. Breaking the filibuster clears the way for final passage, but the bill is nevertheless a temporary fix: "The measure would extend the extra unemployment pay only through early May." In other words, we may get to experience all of this again a month from now. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
April 12, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Tragic plane crash in Russia on Saturday: "Polish President Lech Kaczynski was killed early Saturday when the plane he was traveling in with his wife and a Polish delegation crashed at a western Russian airport, according to the Russian regional governor." President Obama called the accident "devastating to Poland, to the United States, and to the world." * Also over the weekend, the four bodies of the missing West Virginia coal miners were found, raising the death toll to 29. * Massey CEO Don Blankenship characterized the efforts of federal safety regulators "as silly as global warming." [Update: Though it appears that quote may not be quite what it appears.] * Afghanistan: "U.S. troops opened fire on a bus carrying Afghan civilians Monday, killing five people, officials said, setting off anti-American protests in a key southern city where coalition forces hope to rally the public for a coming offensive against the Taliban." * Pulitzer Prize awards announced. * The effects of Republican obstructionism: thousands of home closings have been delayed because buyers cannot obtain flood insurance: * Two new names for the Supreme Court short list: federal appeals court judge Sidney Thomas of Montana and former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. * There was some chatter today about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being considered for the high court. Administration officials quickly knocked down the rumors. We can probably discount scuttlebutt about Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), too. * DNC launches a new ad in support of Wall Street reform. * I'd be surprised if most voters were well versed on the subject, but for what it's worth, a new CNN poll shows 70% of Americans want the Senate to ratify the New START. * Stranger in a strange land: Blue Girl goes to a Tea Party gathering. * President Obama ditched the press on Saturday to attend a soccer game of one of his daughters. Reporters were really not happy about this. * Most colleges require students to have health insurance when they enroll. If students aren't on their parents' plans, they essentially have to enroll in the plan offered by the school. The trouble is that it turns out most of those plans are kind of terrible. * Fact checking the Sunday shows. * I never take internet-based polls seriously. * Radical domestic extremists, including the KKK, are "'roaring back' after years out of the limelight." Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
UKRAINE TO GIVE UP ITS HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM.... The Obama administration begins its Nuclear Security Summit today in Washington, a meeting described as "the largest gathering of world leaders arranged by a U.S. president since FDR set up the 1945 meeting leading to the United Nations." The question, though, has been whether the summit will produce tangible results and/or commitments on counter-proliferation. It appears that at least one important breakthrough has already occurred.
Robert Gibbs told reporters the agreement with Ukrainian officials is "something that the United States has tried to make happen for more than 10 years. The material is enough to construct several nuclear weapons." Spencer Ackerman added, "Ukraine is a really important country for nuclear proliferation purposes. Home to Chernobyl, the world's foremost symbol of nuclear insecurity, it's one of the countries that the Nunn-Lugar nuclear security program targeted for finance and technical assistance on safeguarding its Soviet-legacy nuclear materials." —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
BOEHNER CALLS HEALTH CARE REPEAL THE GOP'S #1 PRIORITY.... Republican officials still haven't quite figured out what they want to say about repealing the new Affordable Care Act -- a surprising number of Republicans aren't willing to commit to scrapping the entire law -- but the party's House leader nevertheless described the push as the GOP's top legislative priority.
DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called Boehner's comments "stunning."
Dems aren't backing down at all on this front, and I'm glad. The party has long seen advantages in the GOP's repeal push, and it's a strategy Dems hope will pay dividends. But Van Holllen's response reminded me of a related point. The new Affordable Care Act really does offer lots of tax breaks to small businesses and individuals. I'm curious -- if Republicans are vowing to repeal the ACA in its entirety, doesn't that mean they're promising to raise taxes? And for those GOP candidates who've signed that Norquist pledge, isn't this likely to be problematic? —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
MEDVEDEV APPRECIATES A 'THINKER' IN THE OVAL OFFICE.... ABC's George Stephanopoulos interviewed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in St. Petersburg on Friday, the day after he joined President Obama in Prague to sign a new nuclear arms treaty. The interview, portions of which were aired this morning on "Good Morning America," prompted some interesting exchanges. (Stephanopoulos did not ask Medvedev to respond to any Sarah Palin quotes.) The transcript is well worth reading, but with an eye towards U.S. politics, these remarks stood out. (video via ThinkProgress)
It's easy to forget sometimes, but it is awfully heartening to again have a U.S. leader who commands respect on the international stage. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
'BARTER WITH YOUR DOCTOR'.... Once in a great while, we get a peek at Republicans' health care ideals, but rarely do we see them articulated as candidly as Sue Lowden described them last week. Lowden is a former state senator and chair of the Nevada Republican Party. She's also, according to nearly every recent poll, the favorite to defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in November. Lowden is not, as one might imagine, a supporter of recent improvements to the broken health care system, and she was asked at a candidate forum the kind of policies she'd prefer to see. Among her proposals:
Think about how this would work outside the realm of campaign rhetoric, and apply it to real-life. Someone feels ill and makes an appointment to see a doctor. The patient is concerned about her health -- maybe the ailment is serious -- and is feeling sick. The physician evaluates her condition and recommends some medication and tests. At this point, in Lowden's vision, the ailing patient should turn to the medical professional and say, "Well, you know, that medication will probably cost about $200. Tell you what; how about I give you $130 and we call it even? And those tests you think I need sound kind of expensive. I may have a life-threatening illness, and I'm feeling weak and vulnerable, but I'm also looking for the best possible bargain. What kind of deal can you give me on that CT scan? And do I really need that blood work done?" I also enjoyed hearing the would-be senator encourage people to "pay cash for whatever your medical needs are." Since Republicans tend to think Americans already have too much health insurance, Lowden's advice fits nicely into the larger GOP worldview. Remember, Lowden has had plenty of time to craft her message on health care policy, and this is what she's come up with. It seems hard to imagine voters finding this compelling, but it's an odd year. Update: Some readers have suggested that I've confused "bartering" with "bargaining." Actually, I think Lowden has them confused. Unless the Republican candidate actually imagines a scenario in which sick people trade unrelated products and services for medical care, she probably was proposing some kind of haggling scenario. —Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (91)
MOVEON LABELS VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS 'UNFIT TO LEAD'.... We got our first look today at MoveOn.org's new ad campaign, which labels key Republican lawmakers as "unfit to lead." There are four ads being released this week, this one embedded here features a woman talking about her sister who'll benefit from the new health care reform law, and taking aim at Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) for having voted against it. There's also this one, featuring a man who lost his job and insurance, and blasting Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) for fighting against the reform law; this one featuring a woman with diabetes who now has peace of mind for her family, and criticizing Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) for having voted against it; and this one featuring a man making the economic case for reform, and rebuking Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) for fighting against it. There are a couple of interesting angles to this. The first is appreciating how Dems and their allies will deal with health care in the midterm cycle. These new ads point to an approach predicated on embracing the breakthrough initiative, rather than shying away from it, and pressing Republicans on their opposition to changes that the public likes. As Greg Sargent explained, "The new MoveOn spot suggests that the constellation of liberal groups allied with the White House will opt for the latter as the best way to turn this fall's contest into a choice election, rather than just a referendum on the Dem performance. And all signs, for now, are that Beltway Dems agree that their best hope is to fully embrace the reform law and try to shift opinion on it by casting it as crucial to economic recovery, rather than to run away from it." Also note, the ad isn't about giving cover to Dems; it's about going on the offensive against Republicans who might be vulnerable in November. With so much focus of late on how many seats Democrats might lose in the midterms, it's also worth keeping in mind that there are still some GOP incumbents who'll be targeted, too. —Steve Benen 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES GETS A LITTLE LARGER.... I guess this story hasn't quite run its course just yet.
Barbour is currently the head of the Republican Governors Association, and a possible 2012 presidential candidate. He also described himself last week as a "fat redneck." Josh Marshall noted this morning, "The Dems must be pretty bummed the Republicans have finally managed to put the Civil War, slavery and segregation behind them. Oh, right. Never mind." And for the record, as Newsweek editor Jon Meacham explained over the weekend, the issue means a lot more than diddly: "Efforts to rehabilitate the Southern rebellion frequently come at moments of racial and social stress, and it is revealing that Virginia's neo-Confederates are refighting the Civil War in 2010. Whitewashing the war is one way for the right -- alienated, anxious and angry about the president, health care reform and all manner of threats, mostly imaginary -- to express its unease with the Age of Obama, disguising hate as heritage." —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In Nevada, the latest Mason-Dixon poll continues to show Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) struggling. In a hypothetical race between Reid, former Nevada state senator Sue Lowden (R), and Tea Party of Nevada candidate Scott Ashjian, Reid trails Lowden by eight. * As if Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) needed more discouraging news, Rasmussen now shows him trailing Marco Rubio in their Senate primary by nearly 30 points, 57% to 28%. * Adding insult to injury, Crist reported his first quarter fundraising totals late on Friday afternoon. In all likelihood, his campaign chose that time in the hopes that we wouldn't notice he raised less than a third of Rubio's total over the same period of time. * The latest Morning Call/Muhlenberg College Poll in Pennsylvania shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) up by seven against Sen. Arlen Specter (D), 47% to 40%. * In Ohio, the latest Research 2000 poll found Gov. Ted Strickland (D) leading former Rep. John Kasich (R) in this year's gubernatorial race, 45% to 40%. * On a related note, the same poll shows both Democratic Senate hopefuls in Ohio, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, leading former Bush Budget Director Rob Portman by narrow margins. * Wrestling executive Linda McMahon's Republican Senate campaign in Connecticut has been struggling, but a new steroids controversy will likely make matters worse. * And Mitt Romney didn't attend the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, but he nevertheless eked out a narrow win in its 2012 straw poll. Rep. Ron Paul was a close second, followed by Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)
HARRY REID: 'WE CANNOT WAIT' ON IMMIGRATION REFORM.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) spoke over the weekend at an immigration rally in Las Vegas, vowing to tackle the reform issue quickly. The senator said he has 56 votes on the legislation, and needs to find "a handful of Republicans." Speaking before a crowd of more than 6,000, Reid, a vulnerable incumbent, assured his audience of his commitment. "We're going to come back, we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform now," he said. "We need to do this this year. We cannot wait." Reid's motivations are hardly a secret. The senate leader not only has a genuine interest in the issue, but he'll also need considerable support from fast-growing Latino communities in Nevada if he has any chance of keeping his job. So, does the legislation have a shot? Ezra Klein ponders its chances.
We already saw these divisions play out during the last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform -- Bush, McCain, and other establishment Republicans backed a reform push, while the base flipped out over "amnesty." Even now, GOP officials are well aware of the dangers -- alienate a growing segment of the population demanding improvements to a very flawed status quo, or infuriate the right wing that Republicans need to keep motivated. If Dems are looking for wedge issues that might improve their midterm prospects, this one might do the trick. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
WALL STREET REFORM AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.... As congressional lawmakers return to Capitol Hill after two weeks off, members have plenty of unfinished business on their to-do list, and a closing window of opportunity to act on its agenda before the midterm elections. And while there will no doubt be plenty of attention focused on the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation fight, some contingents of the Democratic majority nevertheless have their eyes on the new, top legislative priority.
I like the Dems' optimism, and it's encouraging to see them weigh the benefits of going on the offensive. On the merits, the strategy makes sense, not only because adding new accountability and safeguards to the financial system would help provide economic stability for years to come, but also because Americans aren't exactly fond of the bailed-out industry that brought the global system to the brink of collapse. But be on the lookout for two broad angles. The first is the less-ambitious Democratic senators who are more inclined to weaken the bill to get more Republican support. The momentum seems to be moving in the other direction, but the moderates may yet stand in the way of a bold effort. The second is reflexive, knee-jerk opposition from all Republicans at all times. Whenever anyone thinks, "Republicans wouldn't dare do [fill in the blank]," the GOP invariably does just that. In this case, it seems implausible that Republicans, en masse, would fight against reforming a system that nearly destroyed the global economy, but I'd remind Senate Dems that when related legislation came up in the House, it generated exactly zero GOP votes. The Politico piece added, "Unions, consumer groups, party activists and liberals on Capitol Hill see regulatory reform as a win-win issue: They get either a strong bill or a strong campaign argument for the midterm elections." That sounds about right, but Dems would be wise to prepare for inexplicable Republican resistence. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
HUCKABEE, FAMILIES, AND PUPPIES.... Republican Mike Huckabee -- former Arkansas governor, former presidential candidates, and Fox News personality -- hasn't made much of an effort to hide his contempt for gay people. What's interesting, though, is that as American culture becomes more respectful and tolerant, Huckabee seems to be moving in the wrong direction. He chatted with the College of New Jersey's magazine, The Perspective, about a variety of policy matters, including LGBT issues. Huckabee proceeded to compare marriage equality to drug abuse, incest, and polygamy. Perhaps most strikingly, though, Huckabee denounced allowing same-sex couples adopting children or becoming foster parents.
Just so we're clear, we're talking about orphans and children who are often abused or neglected. Most decent people would think it's in "the best interest of the children" for those kids in need to live with people who will love and care for them. But not Huckabee. He's one of those pro-family types who would prefer to see children in orphanages and waiting indefinitely for a permanent home in the foster care system, because, apparently, gays are fundamentally incapable of providing a good home to kids in need. Can't you just feel the conservative love and compassion? —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
SENATE PROSPECTS FOR NEW START.... For many years, support for U.S. nuclear arms treaties has been overwhelming and bipartisan, especially in the Senate. The INF Treaty of 1988 was ratified on a 93-to-5 vote. The 1992 vote on START was 93 to 6. The SORT Treaty's vote in 2003 was a unanimous 95-to-0 vote. With this history in mind, ratifying the New START, negotiated by Presidents Obama and Medvedev, should, in theory, be a fairly straightforward exercise. Republican Sen. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has already endorsed the treaty and urged his colleagues to support it. New START has drawn praise from officials in the Bush/Cheney administration, and received support from Republican notables like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz But with our current political culture, nothing is ever easy.
On the same program, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) endorsed Lieberman's concerns. Roll Call reported today, "Senate Republicans say they are willing to block ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that President Barack Obama signed with Russia unless the administration follows through with key policy concessions." Of course, if Lieberman and Republicans are principally concerned with modernizing the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal, they're preaching to the choir, since the Obama administration has already endorsed doing exactly that. But as Max Bergmann explained, that's not really what's going on here: "[W]hat Lieberman is really saying is that he agrees with those on the far right that want to needlessly build new nuclear weapons, nearly two decades years after the end of the Cold War. The far right insists that the U.S. is falling behind because it is not building new nuclear weapons and that our existing nuclear arsenal is deteriorating. This is a myth and demonstrates a complete, if not willful, ignorance of our approach to maintaining our nuclear weapons.... Lieberman is therefore willing to vote against a treaty -- something that would have dire consequences for the US-Russia relationship, our mission in Afghanistan, and the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime -- in order to symbolically demonstrate his support for the far-right's dangerous nuclear agenda." It takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty. The White House would like to try to complete work on New START by August. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
KRISTOL'S IDEA OF AN ENDORSEMENT.... The panel on "Fox News Sunday," not surprisingly, explored the upcoming nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, prompting some odd observations from Bill Kristol. His analysis started out sounding fairly reasonable. Kristol said President Obama would likely choose a nominee "who's got high, you know, very hard-to-challenge credentials, and I think that'll be Solicitor General Kagan." He then proceeded to urge Republicans to challenge the hard-to-challenge prospective nominee.
Soon after, Kristol concluded, "I endorse Elena Kagan." I see. So, to review, Kristol thinks Solicitor General Elena Kagan has "very hard-to-challenge credentials" and would be a "very respectable choice" for the high court. He also thinks Senate Republicans should fight against her, if she's nominated, because she isn't conservative enough. And then to top it off, Kristol "endorsed" Kagan's nomination. It's a good thing we have conservative pundits like Kristol to help sort through complex political dynamics; otherwise, things might get confusing. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
DAVID GREGORY'S SENSE OF FACT-CHECKING.... The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz noted this morning that NBC's "Meet the Press," still the most watched Sunday public affair show, is poised to undergo some cosmetic changes. It will not, however, follow ABC's lead on the fact-checking front.
I'm not entirely sure what this means. At face value, it suggests a certain misunderstanding of the point of the exercise. One of the Sunday shows invites a high-profile guest to discuss current events. The guest responds to pointed questions, and makes a variety of claims and arguments. Some of those claims and arguments will be accurate, and some won't. For the news consumer watching at home, the information gleaned from the interview is only useful if he/she knows whether the guest's comments are factual. With that in mind, the Sunday shows have a couple of choices. First, hosts can become knowledgeable about the subject matter and fact-check the guests' claims during the program. Second, the shows can partner with independent fact-checkers like "This Week" has done with PolitiFact. Or third, some combination of the two. Gregory's comments suggest a more traditional approach: let viewers figure things out "on their own terms." Why separate fact from fiction for news consumers when they can do that on their own? Perhaps because they aren't well equipped to do this on their own, and rely on professional news outlets to provide them with reliable information. For what it's worth, PolitiFact's fact-checking isn't part of the "This Week" broadcast, at least not yet, but has partnered with the show online. The first installment was published yesterday afternoon, and will apparently be updated again today. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
April 11, 2010
CASUAL ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON.... Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, a relatively obscure Republican freshman lawmaker, published a piece this week on the Obama administration's nuclear policies and counter-proliferation efforts. Fleming, apparently, isn't impressed, and rehashed a variety of tired right-wing cliches and demonstrably false claims. In particular, Fleming repeatedly urged President Obama to be more like Reagan, which made his opinion piece "dishonest and nonsensical," given Reagan's support for nuclear disarmament and treaties like the one Obama signed in Prague this week. But Fleming's conclusion is what stood out for me.
Now, most of the piece is boilerplate garbage. Fleming, or someone on his staff, wrote an op-ed without bothering to understand the details of the policy it seeks to critique. It's the kind of superficial, misleading, and uninformed "analysis" we've come to expect from congressional Republicans. And if Fleming had simply characterized the approach endorsed by the president, the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs as misguided, and even potentially dangerous, it'd hardly be worth mentioning. But note that one line that the congressman italicized -- he believes the White House is "undermining this country's national defense on purpose." Ignorance is commonplace. Belligerence is routine. Stupidity has become habitual throughout much of the caucus. But let's not overlook the fact that Fleming spoke directly to President Obama's motives. Fleming argued that the president isn't just mistaken, but rather, is deliberately trying to make the United States less safe and more vulnerable. In other words, Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana effectively accused the President of the United States -- the Commander in Chief during two wars -- of treason. For Fleming, Obama is choosing to betray the nation, in his words, "on purpose." I write a lot about the excesses of Republican rhetoric, in part because I find GOP remarks illustrative of a party gone mad, and in part because of the impact the rhetoric has on the larger political culture/discourse. Most of the time, the temptation is to mock the absurdities. But once in a while, we find a case like this one, in which a sitting member of the House of Representatives -- not a Fox News personality, not a host of right-wing radio show -- suggests, in print, that the president is a traitor. Is nothing beyond the pale for Republican officials in 2010? Must there be no difference between GOP lawmakers and unhinged right-wing activists? Are we to believe that we should simply expect and tolerate the casual accusations of treason against American patriots? —Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (72)
GOP POINTS TO 'TINY' CHANCE OF FILIBUSTER.... Speculation about how the Senate may respond to a Supreme Court nominee that hasn't even been chosen yet is, by definition, premature. But Republicans nevertheless are weighing the larger context while crafting a strategy. The NYT reports today that Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement "presents a test" for Republicans. On the one hand, they want to keep the right-wing base fully motivated. On the other, some Republican leaders "said they were reluctant to give Democrats further ammunition to portray them as knee-jerk obstructionists." And picking a fight over ideological/cultural issues shortly before the elections doesn't strike many GOP leaders as a wise approach. So, what's the plan? At this point, apparently, it's to downplay the possibility of a filibuster. Here's ABC's Jake Tapper's report from today's edition of "This Week."
For Kyl, then, who said filibusters of judicial nominees were unconscionable and unconstitutional during the Bush/Cheney era, the tactic is on the table, but unlikely to be used. How gracious of him. Given that he would probably need all 41 Republican senators to refuse to allow a floor vote in order for such a gambit to succeed, Kyl isn't really in a position to saber rattle effectively anyway. For what it's worth, Tapper also brought up the names of the four most talked about potential nominees -- Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood, Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano -- and sought Kyl's reaction. All four, the senator said, are "nominally qualified," adding, "It is unlikely that here will be a filibuster unless it's an extraordinary circumstance." —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
CODA ON CONFEDERACY CONTROVERSY.... Newsweek editor Jon Meacham has an important op-ed piece in today's New York Times, summarizing the larger significance of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's "Confederate History Month" proclamation. If you're just joining us, McDonnell reversed recent practice in Virginia with his declaration, but made matters worse by making no references to slavery. Adding insult to injury, the governor said he limited the scope of his declaration to the issues he thought "were most significant for Virginia" -- a sentiment that seemed to suggest he considered slavery and its role in the Civil War to be unimportant. Meacham explained that the Virginia governor "is working in a long and dispiriting tradition."
Meacham concludes that American "cannot allow the story of the emancipation of a people and the expiation of America's original sin to become fodder for conservative politicians playing to their right-wing base." That's good advice. —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS.... Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, best known as the right-wing, "family values" Republican who got caught hiring prostitutes, made a surprise appearance yesterday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. He received a standing ovation. Vitter used the opportunity to try out some of his new material.
Good lord, they're still talking about community organizers -- 18 months after the last presidential election. Taken at face value, Vitter's observation is painfully dumb, even for him. Obama worked for three years a community organizer -- working with churches to create opportunities in economically depressed areas -- more than two decades ago. He went on to become a lawyer, a professor, a state senator, and a U.S. senator, before seeking the presidency. A few too many on the right make it sound as if Obama went from being a community organizer to a national campaign. This overlooks nearly all of the man's adult life In contrast, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin -- apparently the intended beneficiary of Vitter's comment -- is a television personality right now. If/when she runs for the Republican nomination, Palin will try to go directly from TV personality to the White House. In other worse, the choice for voters in 2012 wouldn't be a TV personality vs. a community organizer; it would be a TV personality vs. a successful sitting president. But putting these details aside, the snide, condescending denigration of community organizers among right-wing leaders got tiresome quite a while ago. Working with communities in a bottom-up model may seem worthless to the modern Republican Party, but community organizers deserve respect. Martin Luther King was a community organizer. Susan B. Anthony was a community organizer. Cesar Chavez was a community organizer. Community organizers made the 40-hour workweek possible. They served as the foundation for women's suffrage and the civil rights movement. Community organizers tend to be all the more necessary when American families are crushed by the bankrupt governing philosophy of clowns like David Vitter. If Republicans want to ignore this often-thankless work, fine. But let's not pretend that community organizers deserve this kind of right-wing derision. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)
STEELE TRIES TO PUT HUMILIATIONS BEHIND HIM.... About a year ago, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele had already said and done a variety of things to embarrass himself. During a CNN interview, he insisted he deliberately makes bizarre mistakes as part of an elaborate strategy that only he understands. "[I]f I do something, there's a reason for it," Steele said. "Even, it may look like a mistake, a gaffe. There is a rationale, there's a logic behind it.... It helps me understand my position on the chess board.... It's all strategic." As the controversies have mounted, the notion that Steele screws up on purpose has proven harder to believe. Yesterday, the scandal-plagued RNC chair tried to new tack: contrition, or at least his version of it.
For anyone who's been paying attention, the message wasn't exactly coherent. It's not Dems who've been "pointing fingers" at Steele, it's members of his own party, some of whom have resigned from the RNC, some of whom have decided they'll no longer contribute to a national committee led by someone as incompetent as Steele. Regardless, the implicit, underlying message remains the same: if Republicans would stop noticing all of my screw-ups, Steele seemed to argue, that'd be preferable for everyone. Whether Republicans actually buy this is another matter. Steele was the final speaker at the SRLC event, and attendees didn't stick around to hear the chairman's pitch. The room, by all accounts, was half-empty when Steele spoke. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
April 10, 2010
SO WHY IS THE RIGHT SIDING WITH KARZAI?.... We talked yesterday about an odd phenomenon. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai becomes increasingly erratic -- he reportedly began threatening to hook up with the Taliban this week -- and causes consternation within the White House, leading right-wing voices are taking Karzai's side. Here's Liz Cheney, speaking this week to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference:
Putting aside the fact that Afghanistan is not, in fact, Arab -- try to keep up, Liz, you used to cover the Middle East at the State Department -- the fact that Cheney is siding with Karzai instead of the U.S. leadership strikes me as peculiar. That she and others are publicly backing Karzai, even while he's appearing less sympathetic and less reliable to the West, makes it that much more confounding. I reached out to a few foreign policy types yesterday, hoping to get a better sense of why the far-right would do this, especially now. I received some interesting responses and a range of possibilities. * Knee-jerk partisanship: The Obama administration and much of the West is looking at the Afghan leadership with increasing suspicion. For Cheney, Palin, and their cohorts, if U.S. leaders don't trust a foreign government, there's a reflexive, child-like temptation to take the opposite position. * The Bush/Cheney legacy: No matter what Karzai does, no matter how corrupt he seems, no matter how little legitimacy his government is perceived to have, Bush/Cheney installed him. For the far-right, that necessarily means he's worth defending. * A campaign theme needs cultivating: The GOP wants to characterize President Obama as being antagonistic towards U.S. allies, despite, ironically enough, Bush/Cheney having been antagonistic towards U.S. allies. This is, not incidentally, related to policy towards Israel. * Sending a signal of U.S. division: The White House is taking active steps to hold the Afghan government more accountable on combating corruption, establishing legitimacy, improving inefficiencies in the Afghan system, etc. If Cheney and her ilk can send a signal that U.S. officials are divided, and that Afghan accountability isn't necessarily a priority, the far-right can undermine the Obama administration's credibility. This would adversely affect U.S. interests, but for Cheney & Co., that's an acceptable price for sabotaging the president. It's hard to say with certainty which of these possibilities is right. They might all be. But it's a development that's worth keeping an eye on. If tensions are straining the ties between U.S. leaders and the Karzai government, the far-right is siding with Karzai. I suppose, then, that today's right-wing voices will urge President Obama to apologize? Oh wait, they're down on that, too.... —Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
REMEMBER THOSE TAX CUTS?.... April 15 comes this week, so taxes will no doubt be on the minds of many. President Obama used his weekly address to remind the public about a little detail that usually goes overlooked: he cut taxes. "All across America are good, decent folks who meet their obligations each and every day," the president said. "They work hard. They support their families. They try to make an honest living the best they can. And this weekend, many are sitting down to pay the taxes they owe -- not because it's fun, but because it's a fundamental responsibility of our citizenship. But in tough times, when many families are having trouble just making it all work, Tax Day can seem even more daunting. This year, however, many Americans are seeing some welcome relief. "So far, Americans who have filed their taxes have discovered that the average refund is up nearly ten percent this year -- to an all-time high of about $3,000. This is due in large part to the Recovery Act. In fact, one-third of the Recovery Act was made up of tax cuts -- tax cuts that have already provided more than $160 billion in relief for families and businesses, and nearly $100 billion of that directly into the pockets of working Americans. "No one I've met is looking for a handout. And that's not what these tax cuts are. Instead, they're targeted relief to help middle class families weather the storm, to jumpstart our economy, and to bring the fundamentals of the American Dream -- making an honest living, earning an education, owning a home, and raising a family -- back within reach for millions of Americans." Obama went on to describe, in some detail, all of the tax-cut measures he's approved, including the Making Work Pay tax credit that started last year, the American Opportunity Credit to help defray the costs of college tuition, new tax breaks for first-time home buyers, new tax breaks for those who invest in making their homes more energy efficient, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, allowing more families to qualify for the Child Tax Credit, and new tax credits for the unemployed. The president may need to repeat the message a few more times as the midterm elections draw closer -- a recent NYT/CBS poll asked Americans if they think the Obama Administration increased taxes, decreased taxes, or have they kept taxes the same. Only 12% accurately noted that taxes have done down; twice as many (24%) mistakenly said the opposite. It's hard for a president and his party to get credit for cutting taxes when so many have forgotten what's already happened.
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week are the latest developments surrounding devastating scandal surrounding the Roman Catholic Church, the sexual abuse of children, and an apparent cover-up. In the latest revelations, published late yesterday, there's new evidence of the pope delaying punishment for a suspected pedophile.
Reports suggest that the Vatican, at the time, was concerned about the dwindling number of priests, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger took note of Kiesle's young age (38) in his letter. That correspondence, the AP noted, "is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office." Also from the God Machine this week: * To say that the religious right movement is looking forward to the next Supreme Court confirmation fight would be an understatement. * A vaguely-theocratic religious right activist appears to be a leading contender this year to be elected to the Texas Supreme Court. [corrected] * Archbishop Jose Gomez, the Vatican's new choice to lead the Los Angeles archdiocese, is a member of Opus Dei. (thanks to reader D.J. for the heads-up) * And top official at a prominent religious right group called this week for the U.S. deportation of all Muslim Americans. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that this won't happen, but that it'd even come up -- in print, no less -- is evidence of the latest twists and turns of the religious right worldview. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
THE WIT AND WISDOM OF FAR-RIGHT BLOGS.... Long-time readers may recall that I was the editor of Salon's now defunct "Blog Report" a few years ago, and highlighted posts from all kinds of blogs from across the political spectrum. As part of my duties, I read more than my share of far-right bloggers on a daily basis. I've long since given up on them, but Andrew Sullivan flagged an item from a relatively noteworthy right-wing blog that reminded me of the kind of content I'm missing.
Keep in mind, the writer wasn't kidding. This was an actual, sincere observation. As John Cole asked, "Is it possible that all of these blogs we've been reading and laughing at are all elaborate spoofs, and the joke is on us?" Sure, it's possible. For the record, in case anyone is tempted to find the argument credible, I should note that Palin, during her two years as governor, had no national security responsibilities with the Guard, and never had to make a command decision during her brief gubernatorial tenure. Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, has said nice things about Palin, but he's also acknowledged that the former half-term governor played no role in the Guard's activities, and wasn't even briefed by federal officials on decisions related to the Guard. She had about as much of a connection to nuclear policy as I do. To argue, without a hint of sarcasm, that Palin's views of nuclear arms and proliferation were "shaped by her stint as the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard" is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a while. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)
FAMILY VALUES.... With disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich having spent quite a bit of time this week in the national media -- an oddly frequent occurrence -- Jon Chait raises an observation that often goes overlooked.
I'd go just a little further, still. Gingrich's scandalous personal life and admitted adultery was concurrent with Gingrich launching an impeachment crusade against Bill Clinton for ... his scandalous personal life and admitted adultery. Gingrich then proceeded to characterize himself as an ally of the religious right, and started giving tours of Washington's "Godly heritage." In other words, Gingrich's political work was discredited, his moral standing was discredited, and his scholarship has been discredited. And yet, he remains a go-to guest for major media outlets, and has positioned himself as one of the right's "big thinkers." When we talk about the bankruptcy of conservatism, Gingrich offers a helpful example. —Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
IF A FIGHT IS INEVITABLE.... If the wake of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement announcement, the various players are, not surprisingly, already positioning themselves for a nomination fight. We've seen a few Republican senators, with varying degrees of subtlety, speculate about their willingness to filibuster a nominee that hasn't even been chosen. Much of the speculation, then, is over whether President Obama wants to "pick a fight," selecting a solid progressive (a "bold" choice), or a more easy-to-confirm moderate (a "safe" choice). I don't necessarily have a favorite or an outside-the-box recommendation -- if Obama can find a jurist with John Paul Stevens' temperament, intellect, and values, but 50 years younger, that'd work for me just fine -- but it's worth appreciating the fact that it's not entirely up to the president to "pick a fight" or not. Ezra Klein had a good item on this late yesterday.
Agreed. National Review went so far yesterday as to call on Republicans to resist the eventual nominee, no matter who's selected. And while the "fight" over Sotomayor was mild in retrospect, it came fairly early in the president's first year -- Republicans have managed to become less reasonable and more reckless since. In an election year, their irresponsible tendencies are likely to be that much more intense. I don't doubt that the White House is aware of this, but it needs to be underscored anyway: there's practically no way for Obama to get a qualified, center-left jurist through the Senate without intense far-right opposition. Considering the short list based on who'll face the least contentious confirmation process is a fool's errand. —Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
April 9, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * President Obama wants the next Supreme Court nominee confirmed in time for the October session, but some Senate Republicans are already openly speculating about filibustering a nominee they have not yet seen. * National Review expects GOP senators to oppose the president's nominee, regardless of who it is. * Michael Scherer reviews some of the many names currently being bandied about for the president's short list. * Of the various possibilities, the right clearly prefers Merrick Garland. * West Virginia: "Funerals began Friday for some of the 25 miners killed in a West Virginia coal mine, while rescue teams were making their fourth attempt to reach four workers still missing." * Green shoots: "Inventories held by wholesalers rose by a larger-than-expected amount in February while sales increased for the 11th consecutive month." * No link yet, but reliable sources tell me Dawn Johnsen is withdrawing as the president's choice to head the OLC. * Greek's debt crisis continues to appear increasingly dire. * An Israeli delegation was scheduled to attend President Obama's nuclear security summit next week. Prime Minister Netanyahu, fearing talk about his undeclared nuclear arsenal, is now refusing to participate. * The latest alleged domestic terrorist: Larry Eugene North, an east Texas man who also hates his government. * The number of Republican officials calling for RNC Chairman Michael Steele's ouster is growing. * Forget Norquist's pledge; how about the Tax Fairness Pledge? * TS gets credit, not only for endorsing my "former half-term governor" frame, but also for making Glenn Reynolds look very foolish. * Speaking of framing, Andrew Sabl follows up on his insightful take on how best to characterize the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. A good read, to be sure. * A new academic discipline: male studies? * And CNN's Kyra Phillips seems to now realize it was a bad idea to air a segment with Richard Cohen on "curing" homosexuality. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
THE FUTURE WAS CAO.... In December 2008. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) published a memo. The subject line read, "The Future is Cao," and it argued, "As House Republicans look ahead to the next two years, the Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative, and work aggressively to earn the trust of the American people." The message was a little disingenuous. Rep. Joseph Cao (R) won in a very Democratic New Orleans congressional district because his opponent was a felon, not because he was a great candidate. In any case, Cao, in his first term, has been about as moderate as a House Republican can be these days, including voting for health care reform when it initially came to the floor in November. (He stuck with his party last month on final passage.) Cao is now helping host the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in his home town, and Dave Weigel was there when the freshman lawmaker ran into Kim Hasney, a local voter who said she can't vote for him again. She explained to Weigel why. (via Alex Seitz-Wald)
Here's a helpful tip for conservatives. When you're talking to a reporter, and you're complaining that your representative received campaign contributions in the "white suburbs," but is now focused on his "liberal, giveaway, spread-the-wealth, welfare, black" constituents, it doesn't help when you add, "I'm not just talking about black people." —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
IN PRAISE OF FACT-CHECKING.... For all the complaining I do about the Sunday public-affairs talk shows -- I have been known to be critical, from time to time -- it's only fair to credit one of the shows for doing the right thing. ABC News' Jake Tapper had this item yesterday.
Nicely done. I know "This Week" is likely to experience something of an overhaul when Christiane Amanpour becomes the new host, but here's hoping teaming up with PolitiFact becomes a standard feature. And if we're really fortunate, the show's competitors will follow "This Week's" lead. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
FAR-RIGHT HEARTS KARZAI?.... In response to questioning, President Obama told George Stephanopoulos he doesn't care what former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin thinks about nuclear proliferation, since she doesn't really know anything about the subject. Palin, of course, responded today.
Now, when it comes to experience on nuclear issues, Palin is not only confused about the policy, she's also confused about Obama. As a senator, some of Obama's most impressive work came when he teamed with Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) to work on counter-proliferation. And as president, Obama personally helped negotiate the most important arms treaty in a generation. Palin, meanwhile, thinks Vladimir Putin once flew over her house. What we're seeing is the difference between a child and an adult. But I'm also curious about that other point. Palin thinks the president treated Karzai "poorly," and then implicitly defended Afghan president's recent antagonism towards the U.S. Oddly, Liz Cheney appeared at the same conference last night, and also chastised Obama for not being friendlier to Karzai. Since when do right-wing Republicans side with Karzai over the U.S. leadership? I don't mean that as snark; I genuinely didn't realize that the new line in far-right circles was to defend Karzai, and I'm not at all sure how they arrived at this point. Keep in mind, Karzai has come under bipartisan fire in the U.S. lately, first after accusing the West of interfering in Afghanistan's recent election, and then again when Karzai threatened to join forces with the Taliban. Obama, meanwhile, has been urging the Afghan administration to crack down on the corruption and inefficiencies that plague Karzai's government. Palin and Cheney are on Karzai's side? Why? Have we reached the point at which anyone who draws a rebuke from the Obama White House is necessarily going to get support from right-wing Republicans? It's almost as if we've entered a new era of the Blame-America-First crowd, with far-right clowns like Palin and Cheney taking the lead. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)
THE RIGHT'S NEW APPROACH TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION.... Neal Boortz, a far-right radio host, argued today, "If Obama is hurting your business, and you have to lay off someone, why not lay off an Obama voter? They contributed to your problem." Boortz added, "Why should you have to provide a livelihood to someone actively working to destroy your business?" Now, as a matter of reality, the notion that President Obama might be hurting businesses is quite foolish. It was, after all, the president's policies that rescued the economy and generated growth and job creation. I don't know what Boortz is whining about. But it's this notion that conservative employers should fire Democratic employees that seems insane -- and illegal*. That it may actually be happening is especially disconcerting.
Obviously, as a substantive matter, this doesn't make any sense. As a legal matter, it's a crime to fire an employee based on how he or she voted. But there's also the larger context to consider -- in 2010, we're reaching a point in which a right-wing doctor doesn't want to treat Democratic patients, and right-wing employer doesn't want to keep Democratic workers on the payroll. The Republican culture is taking on a vaguely repressive, totalitarian worldview. * Clarification: Several readers have brought to my attention that I overstated this. The government can't fire employees based on their voting behavior, but some private employers can. It depends on the state -- some states, but not all, have laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employee's political activity or affiliation. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... I appreciate the role a nuclear arsenal can play in serving as a deterrent against adversaries. But Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota may not appreciate the notion of a proportionate response.
There are obviously a lot of errors of fact and judgment in that quote, but that "maybe a cyber attack" is the part that stands out. To be sure, attacks on a country's computer networks can be severely damaging. But even Bachmann, as confused as she is, has to realize that responding to a cyber attack with a nuclear bomb would be the most insane act in the history of humanity. Does she understand what a nuclear bomb does? So to answer Bachmann's question, no, the United States will not use a nuclear arsenal to respond to a cyber attack. That doesn't mean we'd welcome a cyber attack; it doesn't mean we'd let a cyber attack slide; it doesn't mean our conventional weapons couldn't serve as a sufficient deterrent. The right really is getting worse. —Steve Benen 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (62)
'PURPOSEFUL IDIOCY'.... If you learned about the new nuclear arms treaty with Russia yesterday from a major news outlet, you probably gained a reasonably accurate understanding of the developments. If you learned about the treaty from Fox News, you probably ended up knowing less than if you'd simply spent the day in a sensory-deprivation tank. If you have a few minutes, watch this segment from "The Daily Show."
It's worth emphasizing the fact that Fox News personalities got just about every aspect of this story wrong. And by "wrong," I'm not just referring to areas of judgment and consistency; I mean they told viewers things that aren't true, making claims with no foundation in reality. Jon Stewart referred to the network's "willful misunderstanding of the policy," and characterized a back-and-forth between Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity as "purposeful idiocy." Stewart added, "We're at the point now that the by far number one ranked news network in this country, no longer feels the need to report what a policy document says in black and white." —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the nation's leading and most politically influential unions, is moving forward with its plans to create its own political party in North Carolina, with the intention of fielding candidates as early as this year. * Sen. Bob Bennett (R) in Utah is in so much political trouble back home, he'll stay in Utah to campaign when the Senate reconvenes next week after a two-week recess. Bennett will reportedly stay in Utah until the state's Republican caucuses on May 8. * In Illinois, Rasmussen has state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) trailing Rep. Mark Kirk (R), 41% to 37%. * After Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) voted with Republicans against health care reform, there was widespread talk that Allegheny County Labor Council chief Jack Shea would take him on in a Democratic primary. Yesterday, Shea decided against it. * In related news, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) also voted with the GOP on health care reform, and his would-be primary challenger also took a pass on the race this week. * Florida CFO Alex Sink, the Dems' gubernatorial hopeful this year, has been struggling a bit of late, and made some significant staffing changes yesterday. * There will be a special election in Hawaii's 1st congressional district on May 22, and Democrats are increasingly concerned about losing the seat. The problem is that it's a three-way race -- two Democrats against one Republican. * In West Virginia, Spike Maynard (R) is taking on Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) this year, which wouldn't be especially noteworthy were it not for Maynard's close, personal ties to Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
JOHN PAUL STEVENS TO RETIRE FROM SUPREME COURT.... He started sending pretty strong signals last week, and today, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he will, in fact, retire.
Stevens' departure from the high court will mark the end of an era: he is the last justice to have served in World War II, lived through Prohibition, and was around for the start of the Great Depression. In terms of the Supreme Court's stark ideological divisions, it's unlikely that Stevens' retirement will change the makeup of the bench -- despite having been nominated by a Republican president (Ford), Stevens is one of the high court's most reliably liberal votes. President Obama, who Stevens praised in recent interviews, will almost certainly replace Stevens with another progressive voice, keeping the center-left bloc with four votes (joining Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor). Obama is scheduled to address Stevens' announcement in the Rose Garden this afternoon, around 1:20 (ET)*. This will be the president's second opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, following last year's Sotomayor nomination. Several names of jurists have become the subject of D.C. scuttlebutt in recent weeks, and most of the attention has been focused on Solicitor General Elena Kagan, and appeals court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland. As recently as five days ago, Senate GOP leaders were already openly speculating about filibustering the president's unnamed nominee. * updated —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
STEPHANOPOULOS RESPONDS.... I raised some concerns earlier about one of George Stephanopoulos' questions for President Obama about nuclear proliferation. To his credit, Stephanopoulos took the time to respond and offer a defense. To quickly review, the president sat down with Stephanopoulos in Prague, on the heels of Obama signing in a new arms treaty with Russia. The two covered quite a bit of ground, but Stephanopoulos specifically asked the president to respond to a childish, vapid quote from former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) about arms control. Obama rightly dismissed the comments as nonsense, and said he'd rather listen to his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff on nuclear issues than Palin. I went a little further and argued that the question itself was a mistake. In effect, the "GMA" host was saying, "Some conspicuously unintelligent right-wing media personality said something stupid about a subject she knows nothing about. Mr. President, how do you respond?" Sam Stein asked Stephanopoulos about the question's merit.
Greg Sargent found this persuasive, arguing that Palin's "views do, in fact, matter." Glenn Greenwald agreed. It's a fair point. Palin is a national embarrassment, but she's been a candidate for national office and, regardless of merit, she's likely to be a presidential contender in the next election. For what it's worth, though, I continue to think the question was a mistake. Whatever one thinks of Palin, the quote Stephanopoulos read to the president was, at best, inane. No matter how big Palin's right-wing following, or how serious her ambitions, there's simply no honest or intellectually serious way to suggest she knows anything about this subject. Palin's quote, in other words, was baseless nonsense. The president knew it was nonsense; Stephanopoulos knew it was nonsense; every reasonable observer watching knew it was nonsense. Which leads me back to my original point. There's obviously nothing wrong with Stephanopoulos pressing Obama on the merits of his nuclear strategy. That is, of course, Stephanopoulos' job. But there are legitimate, substantive critiques of the president's policy, which have been made by those who know something about arms control and proliferation issues. Stephanopoulos didn't raise their concerns, he instead went with Palin -- probably, I suspect, because of the shock value and political notoriety of the controversial Fox News personality. Bottom line: yesterday was a serious day about a serious issue. The debate has sweeping implications about global security. If the president is going to respond to concerns about nuclear weapons policy, those concerns should at least have some merit, not get thrown into the mix based on the size and strength of one's "following." —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (81)
REFORM DEBATE LEADS TO RIGHT-WING THREATS.... It certainly seems as if threats of violence from right-wing activists, targeting members of Congress, have been far more common of late. Apparently, this is not just a perceived shift -- there's been a quantifiable rise.
Law-enforcement officials are taking these developments seriously. Not only have there been arrests, but some congressional offices are "receiving additional equipment to help with the screening of mail," while others are taking renewed security measures to help prevent incidents. To be sure, there's a difference in severity among these threats. On the one end of the spectrum we see plenty of messages from unhinged conservatives (letters, emails, voice mails) that include violent rhetoric, most of which are probably random nuts blowing off steam. On the other, we see at least one right-wing activist cutting a gas line at the Charlottesville home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother. In between, conservative extremists have thrown bricks through windows and made specific death threats. Obviously, this is no laughing matter. But part of me finds a certain macabre humor in the absurdity of it all -- there is no modern precedent for a group of American political activists becoming this violent in response to legislation they don't understand. I'm not in a position to know the personal details of those responding violently to the Affordable Care Act, but given general demographic information, it's extremely likely that most of those turning to criminal behavior to express their outrage are also likely to benefit personally from the new law. There's just something extraordinary about right-wing extremists reacting violently to bogus arguments. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
STUPAK HEADS FOR THE EXITS.... Rep. Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan, who made a name for himself this year by repeatedly threatening to kill health care reform over indirect abortion funding, will announce today that he's stepping down at the end of his term.
It's hard to know whether the "burned out" explanation is the real story. After all, before this week, there was practically no talk about Stupak retiring this year, and the incumbent lawmaker gave no indication that he planned to do anything but seek another term. But right-wing interest groups this week started to go after Stupak with a vengeance, and their attacks appear to have rattled the lawmaker badly. As we've talked about before, not all retirement announcements are created equal -- the more significant ones are in districts that are likely to switch party hands. Stupak's announcement, then, is pretty significant. His district leans to the right, with Bush having carried it twice, though Obama won here with just 50% support in 2008. Expect Republicans to target the district aggressively, an effort they likely wouldn't have launched had Stupak sought re-election. Connie Saltonstall, a former local county commissioner, was already taking on Stupak in a Democratic primary, and will reportedly continue to run in his absence. Chances are, however, that party leaders will see Saltonstall as more progressive than the district, and there's already talk about recruiting Mike Prusi, Michigan's Senate minority leader, into the race. For those keeping score, Stupak is the 16th House Democrat to announce his retirement for this cycle, as compared to 18 House Republicans who are also stepping down (19 if you include Florida's Mario Diaz-Balart, who is retiring from one House seat to run for another). —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
PARTY LIKE IT'S 1995.... Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) threw some red meat at the crowd assembled for the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last night, in a speech ostensibly about showing the GOP how to become "the party of 'yes.'" But ol' Newt has some bad habits he just can't kick. The former Speaker -- forced by his own caucus to resign more than a decade ago -- believes congressional Republicans should say "yes" next year to ... shutting down the government.
According to Mike Madden's report, it was this part of the Gingrich's vision that generated "the most applause" from Republican activists assembled in New Orleans. I realize that the events of 15 years ago seem like ancient history for a lot of folks. A 30-year-old voter today was just starting high school when Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government -- twice -- and became one of the nation's most reviled public figures. But for those who do remember, it may seem almost amusing that Gingrich would actively encourage his party to follow his misguided playbook all over again. Perhaps the more relevant question is, would the GOP be so foolish as to follow Newt's ridiculous advice? —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
WRONG QUESTION, RIGHT ANSWER.... President Obama sat down with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos for an exclusive interview in Prague yesterday, on the heels of the president signing in a new arms treaty with Russia. The interview, portions of which were aired this morning on "Good Morning America," covered quite a bit of ground, and the transcript is well worth reading for thoughts on Iran, among other things. There was, however, one exchange that stood out for me.
The president's response was the right one. When dealing with issues of counter-proliferation and the nuclear threats of the 21st century, he can listen to credible and knowledgeable experts, including his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, or he can listen to the bizarre rhetoric of a dimwitted former half-term governor of a small state, who appears to have no working knowledge of this or any other subject. It's not a tough call. Why on earth would anyone give a damn what the clownish Sarah Palin thinks about arms control? Which leads to the larger point: why is George Stephanopoulos using an idiotic quote from a dimwitted former half-term governor of a small state as the basis for a question to the president? In effect, the "GMA" host was saying, "Some conspicuously unintelligent right-wing media personality said something stupid about a subject she knows nothing about. Mr. President, how do you respond?" Here's a thought: why should he be expected to respond? When doing an interview after a key development on international affairs, why not stick to the perspectives of grown-ups? Update: Stephanopoulos responds to my concerns (and I respond to his response). —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (69)
April 8, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Rescue crews hope to re-enter the Upper Big Branch mine tonight, while President Obama presses for more answers on mine safety. * Unrest spread throughout Bishkek today, and while Kyrgyzstan's president was forced to flee, he said from an unknown location that he would not resign. * Chinese officials signal an encouraging shift on currency policy, but Krugman isn't sure whether to believe them. * After some encouraging weeks, new jobless claims went up last week unexpectedly. * Spencer Ackerman considers the national security case against killing Anwar al-Awlaki. * Republicans aren't happy about it, but Senate Dems are moving forward on Goodwin Liu's nomination to the 9th Circuit. * Glacier National Park continues to lose its glaciers. * The "16,000 IRS Agents" lie really is painfully ridiculous -- which is why prominent Republican leaders keep repeating it, assuming Americans aren't smart enough to know better. * North Carolina's Republican Party chairman wants Michael Steele to resign. * Making the SAT "optional": a growing number of colleges don't require the SATs for admission. * I have to admit, I'm glad to see the "former half-term governor" line start to catch on. * Gregory Giusti was arrested this week for threatening Speaker Nancy Pelosi's life over health care reform. Reflecting on what drove him to such behavior, Giusti's mother blamed Fox News. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
THE SHIFTING FLORIDA WINDS.... I continue to think the Crist-Rubio contest in Florida is not only fascinating, but has far broader implications for the national landscape. The Republicans' Senate primary -- pitting Gov. Charlie Crist against former state House Speaker Marco Rubio -- has become something of a proxy for the larger fight within the GOP, and the outcome will send a signal about the GOP's near-term future. Crist, thought not too long ago to be invincible, is now struggling so badly, the chances of him dropping his Republican bid to run as an independent appear to be growing.
When the subject of Crist running outside the GOP comes up, the governor and his team tend to dismiss it, often angrily, as if the scuttlebutt were somehow insulting. When asked about the prospects of an independent bid yesterday, Crist said, "I'm focused on the session. I'm focused on these bills that are pending and coming up shortly. That's where my focus is, there will be time for other things later." That's not a "no." It's not even close to a "no." At this point, Crist is trailing in every metric. Campaigns can be unpredictable, but it's hard to imagine the scenario in which Crist recovers and wins this primary. If he wants to hold elected office in January, Crist is probably going to have to consider alternative plans -- and he has until April 30 (three weeks from tomorrow) to make an independent move. If he stays in the GOP primary beyond that date, he'll take on Crist in the Aug. 24 primary, and likely lose. As has become clear, the dominant right-wing element of the Republican Party has a point it hopes to make, and it has every intention of crushing Crist to send a message to other GOP candidates who may stray from the far-right line. The larger national significance is obvious: Republicans have decided that relative moderates no longer have a place in the party. The party drove Arlen Specter away. The party drove Dede Scozzafava away. Now it has Charlie Crist in its proverbial crosshairs. Indeed, late last year, CNN's Erick Erickson said on his blog that the special election in New York's 23rd was "our Lexington," while the Senate primary in Florida will be "Concord." No one would be in a better position to say, "I didn't leave my party; my party left me" than Charlie Crist. Update: And the very second I hit "publish," I see that Crist has once again denied his interest in running as an independent. We'll see. —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
WRITING ON THE WALL GETTING BIGGER FOR ENSIGN.... About a month ago, Politico ran on a piece on Republican Sen. John Ensign's (Nev.) sex-ethics-corruption scandal, noting that "the persistent drip of information ... has some colleagues and top Republican aides asking quietly whether he can serve effectively." The piece included plenty of quotes from GOP insiders on the Hill, but nearly all were from unnamed aides. Republican lawmakers conceded they found it difficult to work with the scandal-plagued Ensign, but would only acknowledge his problems "privately." It spells trouble for Ensign when GOP members start rebuking him on the record.
Heller's remarks were followed by an op-ed today from two former Clark County GOP officials who urged "all true conservative Republican leaders and activists to speak out now for the resignation of Senator Ensign." I've largely given up trying to figure out why major news outlets aren't taking this seriously. We're talking about a controversy featuring a sitting senator's adulterous affair, plus alleged ethics violations, hush money, and official corruption. An ongoing FBI investigation appears to be heating up, and by some accounts, expanding, and yet, no media frenzy. And while that no doubt comes as a relief to Ensign, the media's disinterest will only help so much if a growing number of Republicans start publicly calling him out. —Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
A PEEK BEHIND THE BECK CURTAIN.... It's been an ongoing point of debate for a while: is Fox News' Glenn Beck actually deranged, or is it just an act to appeal to far-right consumers? I'll admit to going back and forth on the question. But Forbes profiles the strange media personality in its new issue, and gets an interesting comment from the talk-show host himself.
That monetization has proven incredibly lucrative. Beck's Mercury Radio Arts, dubbed "Glenn Beck Inc." by Forbes, generated $32 million over the last year, and only $2 million of that total came from Fox News. The majority was the result of book sales, speaking engagements, merchandising, and assorted Beck-related publications (magazines, website, newsletter). "I don't necessarily believe that [what Beck says] is reflective of his own personal politics -- I don't even know if he has personal politics," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, a trade magazine devoted to talk radio. "I see him as a performer." What's more, Zaid Jilani reminds us that this isn't the first time Beck has suggested he doesn't buy his own shtick. He has described himself as "a rodeo clown" and conceded, "If you take what I say as gospel, you're an idiot." I guess the only surprising thing is that Beck would admit that he doesn't "give a flying crap about the political process," in effect acknowledging that he considers his minions -- who've been convinced by Beck to care deeply about the political process -- a bunch of suckers. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)
THE MISGUIDED NUCLEAR TALKING POINTS.... Listening to the children who speak for the Republican Party in 2010 talk about nuclear policy is a truly depressing exercise. Given the importance of the issue, and the interest in this morning's developments in Prague, it's worth noting reality. It is, alas, in short supply on the right. Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin described the administration's nuclear policy this way yesterday: "It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate.'" Fox News anchor/activist Megyn Kelly believes the U.S. policy may leave the United States "defenseless." Former mayor Rudy Giuliani believes the president want us to "all hold hands, sing songs, and have peace symbols." Page van der Linden did a terrific job today detailing the talking points from the confused GOP children. The post is worth reading in full, but I wanted to highlight a couple of the arguments you're most likely to hear.
Military leaders, policy experts, and a variety of others who are literate on the subject have made it clear that the right-wing arguments have no foundation in reality. But as Page concluded, "All in all, I think the hysteria from FOX News that we are somehow "less safe" even though we're going to have thousands of nuclear weapons on hand for the near future, is pretty ridiculous, but it's also sinister, because people start to believe it." Which is precisely why they pop off with such nonsense in the first place. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
FOX NEWS, GOP THINK AMERICANS DON'T PAY ENOUGH TAXES.... The AP has a piece today with a headline that reads, "Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax." Here's the lede:
This has some on the right complaining -- about the policy, not the story. As Steve M. noted, "So, after a year or so of telling us they're 'taxed enough already,' wingnuts are now going to start complaining that taxes are too low? Apparently." Drudge is telling readers today, "Rob Thy Neighbor: Half of Households Pay No Fed Income Tax." Fox Nation's headline reads, "Fair? Half the Country Doesn't Pay Income Tax." Rick Santorum told Fox News viewers last night, "[W]hen you reach the point where people feel like they don't have to pay anything and they're getting money out of the Treasury for nothing, then there's no end to the amount of government that people want." Glenn Beck is also outraged that more Americans aren't paying more in federal taxes. Since this is apparently the conservative complaint of the day, let's note that it's true that many middle- and lower-class families have seen their tax burden shrink thanks to tax credits approved in the Democratic stimulus package from last year. But those breaks aren't permanent, and just as importantly, it's not as if middle- and lower-class families are free from taxes altogether. As Monica Potts noted, these same families that have been given a break on their federal income taxes still pay other taxes, "like the sales tax, state taxes, and the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes." This "rob thy neighbor" nonsense is ridiculous. But these details aside, why is it, exactly, that Republicans and their allies would be complaining about Americans paying too little in taxes? As Eric Boehlert asked, "From a purely philosophical perspective, wouldn't a study claiming that nearly half of U.S. households escape paying a federal income tax be good news for a political movement -- as well as its chief media enabler -- that rallies for lower taxes? Am I missing something here, or is Fox News' hypocrisy slip just showing again?" —Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)
THEY JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT SUBSTANCE AND POLICY.... Whenever I write about my concerns that Republican lawmakers don't seem to know anything about public policy, I invariably get emails pushing back. Just because GOP leaders take a different approach, doesn't mean they're dumb, I'm told. They must know substantive details, I'm reminded. After all, they're experienced politicians responsible for shaping U.S. policy at the federal level. I can appreciate why the premise seems implausible, but consider a classic example from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman. This week, Bookman and other AJC editors and columnists participated in an 80-minute interview with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Both agreed that they had serious objections to the Affordable Care Act, but said they intended to keep some provisions of the new law, including protections for those with pre-existing conditions. The individual mandate, however, would have to go, the conservative senators said. Readers of this blog probably already recognize the problem here. If those with pre-existing conditions will be protected, the mandate is necessary to keep costs from spiraling and to prevent the "free rider" problem. Bookman understands this. The senators don't.
Let's be clear about this. After over a year of debate about health care policy, two leading Senate Republicans, including the Senate Minority Leader, can't speak intelligently about the basics. Bookman didn't throw a curve ball at them, quizzing them on some obscure provision -- this was an easy one for anyone with a basic understanding of what policymakers have been discussing since early last year. They want protections for those with pre-existing conditions, and want to eliminate the mandate, but asked how that could work, these experienced senators have no idea how to even begin answering the question. They have their talking points, but if anyone dares to scratch the surface, even a little, they're completely lost. Anyone who thinks Republican lawmakers are well-informed, thoughtful public officials, with a working knowledge of public policy, simply isn't paying attention. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * The center of the GOP universe will in New Orleans today, with the start of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. * In Pennsylvania, a new Quinnipiac poll shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) out in front of Sen. Arlen Specter (D), 46% to 41%. In March, Quinnipiac showed Specter leading. * In related news, Quinnipiac also shows state Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) leading Pennsylvania's gubernatorial race, despite his having filed a frivolous lawsuit challenging the new Affordable Care Act. * With Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) considering retirement, the incumbent is facing heavy pressure from party leaders to seek re-election. * In Colorado's Senate race, Rasmussen shows appointed incumbent Michael Bennet (D) still trailing, but by a slimmer margin. The senator, according to the poll, is now down by five against former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton (R), 46% to 41%. * In Illinois, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Bill Brady (R) leading Gov. Pat Quinn (D) by 10, despite the fact that most voters don't know who Brady is. * Former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) officially launched a campaign to get his old job back yesterday, but was immediately met with questions about his former running mate, Michael Steele. * I'm not sure where his confidence comes from, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said if the election were right now, he'd win another term. * The Republican field hoping to take on Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in November got a little bigger this week, with state Commerce Secretary Richard Leinenkugel kicking off his campaign. * Many Indiana Democrats are wondering if retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (D) might run for governor in 2012. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
THE PUBLIC REACH OF THE RNC SCANDAL.... In order for a controversy to be damaging, Americans actually have to hear about the controversy. Last week, for example, we learned that the RNC had spent nearly $2,000 in donor money at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex." This sparked a round of headaches for the party and its beleaguered chairman, Michael Steele, and led to a fairly serious staff shake-up. In political circles, the story was hard to miss, and the controversy became the subject of considerable mockery on the late-night shows. But did the general public hear about it? Consider these results from the latest Pew Research Center survey:
I can't quite decide whether this is encouraging or discouraging. Sure, for those engaged in day-to-day current events, the RNC story was practically ubiquitous, and pretty hilarious. But most Americans struggle to keep up with daily political developments, and only pick up on bits and pieces of the news, if that. In this sense, the fact that 40% of Americans say they heard about this seems relatively good, doesn't it? Chances are, this 40% includes the kind of folks who vote, get involved in public affairs, contribute to candidates, etc. Or is the flip-side true? The RNC can find itself as the butt of a national joke, and six-in-ten Americans still have no idea that the incident even occurred. I can't decide, but I'm open to suggestion. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
THE MUDDLED REPEAL MESSAGE, CONT'D.... Yesterday afternoon, right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) told thousands of fans, "You better believe it, baby. Repeal is what this girl is going to be all about after November. We're about repealing all of Obama-care." Around the same time, right-wing Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said he thinks Republicans will gut the Affordable Care Act, but conceded, "We're not gonna repeal everything." To reiterate a point from a couple of weeks ago, for all of Republicans' many faults, they tend to have one impressive strength: message discipline. The GOP Powers That Be will decide what party officials and their allies are supposed to say, and Republicans tend to follow the marching orders extremely well. The GOP shapes much of the discourse simply by getting its members to all say the exact same thing, over and over again. When it comes to the next step on health care policy, the message mechanism obviously isn't working. It's starting to make the party a little nervous.
The "mini-rebellion" is the result of conservative Republicans getting an earful from their very conservative brethren. GOP leaders have committed to a "repeal and replace" message, though they won't say how much of the new law they want to repeal, and they won't say what they intend to replace it with. For extremists like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), that's not good enough. He and his allies apparently intend to keep pressing party leaders to see things their way. The Iowan wrote last week, "Republicans will either stand unanimously together for 100 percent repeal, as we did against the bill, or our ranks will be split and our effort defeated.... No one demonstrated to 'kill the most egregious aspects' or 'preserve the least egregious aspects' of Obamacare. This is an all or nothing fight from this point forward." The back and forth within the GOP caucus may go on for a while. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
CUT SPENDING (BUT DON'T REALLY).... For years, a variety of polls from a variety of outlets during a variety of conditions all show the same thing: Americans want to see the government cut public spending -- in the abstract. Asked for specifics, the same Americans actually like public spending and don't want to see cuts. Kevin Drum flags the latest example.
This phenomenon is incredibly common. GW's John Sides published a piece a couple of months ago, noting that even self-identified conservatives want to cut spending ... except for all of the things the government actually spends money on. They do like the idea of spending cuts, but balk at the particulars. Around the same time, Pew asked Americans if they wanted to see more spending, less spending, or no change on various parts of the budget. The only area that cracked the 20% threshold was "foreign aid." In literally every other area of the budget, people wanted to see more spending, not less. In February, when President Obama's proposed budget included spending cuts and reduced industry subsidies, Republican lawmakers complained bitterly, saying the cuts might adversely affect their states and districts. It's something voters should try to keep in mind during the midterms. For every candidate who boasts about his/her desire to cut spending, there should be a straightforward follow-up: where? If they can't answer the question, they probably don't mean what they're saying.
THE UNBREAKABLE BOND.... As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) slips further and further into the realm of far-right hacks, most of the media figures who adored him fall into one of two camps. The first is Dana Milbank's camp, which consists of media professionals who kept making excuses for McCain, but who are now saddened by the senator's descent into a pool of far-right nonsense. The second is Jon Stewart's camp, which consists of former McCainiacs who are just disgusted, if not angry, to see the senator abandon everything he seemed to believe in. And then there's Chris Matthews, who simply doesn't care how much McCain abandons any sense of integrity or character -- he'll just keep loving McCain anyway. On "Hardball" yesterday, the MSNBC host described the Republican senator as "a great guy," adding that McCain is "a maverick like Barry Goldwater was a maverick." "If my endorsement helps you, John McCain, you've got it," Matthews said on the air. "If it doesn't, throw me under the bus." I'm not surprised, but it's worth appreciating just how genuinely sad this is. John McCain acts like a moderate willing to break party ranks and blow off the right-wing, and media personalities like Chris Matthews swoon. McCain abandons that persona to become a far-right hack, and media personalities like Chris Matthews swoon anyway, assuming the senator doesn't really mean it. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
THE SHOE-BOMBER WHO WASN'T.... The initial reports certainly sounded scary. Around 10:00 last night, several outlets began reporting that a diplomat from Qatar attempted to blow up a United Airlines flight over American soil. Soon after, CNN's newest political correspondent had posted an item on his blog connecting the incident to the Obama administration decision to drop the phrase "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy. The truth was a little less terrifying. OK, more than a little. Mohammed al-Madadi, the third secretary at the Embassy of Qatar, was apparently trying to sneak a smoke on the plane's bathroom.
The "misunderstanding," by some accounts, was the result of sarcasm gone awry. An air marshal smelled smoke and asked the diplomat to explain himself. A DHS official said the man made an "unfortunate comment," which apparently included a joke about trying to set his shoes on fire. The air marshals did not find the snide joke especially amusing. According to accounts from other passengers, there was "no struggle, no uproar." The plane landed in Denver without incident shortly before 9 p.m., though it landed with an escort of two F-16s. The Qatari diplomat is reportedly in FBI custody, at least for now. [Update: The AP reports this morning that he has been released.] As far as the political discourse is concerned, this was one of those instances in which the hair-trigger panic was not helpful. Conservatives anxious to blame the president for something new will have to wait for a real incident to come along. —Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES.... Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) came under quite a bit of criticism yesterday as the public learned of his latest proclamation, declaring this "Confederate History Month" in the commonwealth -- a practice recent Virginia governors had ended. Making matters worse, unlike the state's last Republican governor, McDonnell made no reference to slavery in his declaration. Adding insult to injury, the governor said he limited the scope of his declaration to the issues he thought "were most significant for Virginia" -- a sentiment that seemed to suggest he considered slavery and its role in the Civil War to be unimportant. McDonnell's declaration generated intense and widespread criticism. The DNC's Tim Kaine, McDonnell's predecessor, was incensed, and civil rights groups, editorial boards, and some of the governor's allies were openly critical. Even conservative bloggers found it hard to defend. By late yesterday afternoon, McDonnell conceded that he was wrong.
The apology was not universally accepted. John Dickerson noted the larger political context, in which McDonnell had tried to position himself "as a post-ideological 'future face of the Republican Party,'" a ploy that now seems rather absurd. The GOP's far-right base already adored McDonnell, but in contemporary Republican circles, that never seems to be enough -- party officials keep trying to do more to impress right-wing activists, no matter how insulting or offensive the efforts may be to everyone else. —Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
SIGNED, SEALED, DELIVERED.... In Prague this morning, Presidents Obama and Medvedev put their signatures on a new nuclear arms treaty, the most significant in nearly two decades.
The treaty, which nearly didn't happen, will now move to the Senate for consideration. For ratification, it will need 67 votes Fred Kaplan had a good piece recently on the treaty and its larger significance. —Steve Benen 7:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
April 7, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Upheaval in Kyrgyzstan: "Large-scale protests on Wednesday appeared to overthrow the government of Kyrgyzstan, an important Amerian ally in Central Asia. Government officials said at least 41 people had been killed in bloody fighting between riot police and demonstrators in the capital of Bishkek and elsewhere in the country." * Still ducking responsibility: "Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan defended his stewardship of the U.S. economy in the run-up to the financial crisis Wednesday, rebuffing accusations that regulatory and other failures by the Fed under his leadership were a major cause of the near-collapse of the financial system." * Upper Big Branch mine: "High levels of dangerous methane gas made it impossible for rescuers to venture inside a coal mine Wednesday to search for survivors of an explosion that killed 25 workers." * President Obama arrives in Prague to sign a new arms treaty with Russia. * If all goes well, G.M. would like to repay its taxpayer loans five years early. * An American-born radical cleric, affiliated with al Qaeda, has found his name on a kill list. The debate begins on whether this is legally dubious, or just kind of scary. * Wait, military officials can't find their copies of the 2007 attack in Iraq that killed two Reuters journalists? * David Ignatius reports that President Obama is "seriously considering" proposing an American peace plan to resolve the Palestinian conflict. * Newt Gingrich sure does lie a lot. * Rachel Maddow takes a closer look at heavily-edited ACORN tapes. * A plaza to remember the "stand in the schoolhouse door." * White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs described remarks from CNN contributor Erick Erickson about the American Community Survey as "remarkably crazy." Sounds about right. * And Rupert Murdoch, which owns Fox News, said last night that he doesn't believe the Republican network should be "supporting the Tea Party." I think it's a little late for that. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
MASSEY ENERGY'S HISTORY.... In light of this week's coal mining disaster in West Virginia, there's a renewed interest in Massey Energy's awful record on safety and worker protections. Given the renewed scrutiny, it's worth remembering that the problem isn't new. Ten years ago, the Big Branch Refuse Impoundment, a giant coal-waste reservoir owned by Massey in Inez, Kentucky, sprung a leak that flooded nearby waterways with so much sludge that it was declared the largest environmental catastrophe in the history of the Southeastern United States -- bigger, in fact, than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Monthly published a piece from Clara Bingham several years ago on the disaster.
The evidence was never published -- the Bush administration, the beneficiary of generous support from Massey CEO Don Blankenship, intervened to quash the investigation. (Indeed, the Bush administration's record on mining oversight was itself scandalous.) Brad Johnson also has a good piece on this today, including details surrounding a deadly fire which broke out in the Massey-owned Aracoma Alma mine in 2006, burning two men alive. Coal River Valley activist Lorelei Scarbro, meanwhile, told CNN, "Massey Energy's record speaks for itself. With an enormous amount of violations and previous deaths at this mine, I will leave it to you to decide if this company puts profits before the safety of its workers or views its employees as a disposable commodity." —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
MAN THREATENING PELOSI ARRESTED.... As awful as it is to see right-wing activists respond to policy debates with violence and threats, it is encouraging that law enforcement officials are taking the dangerous tactics seriously. The threats directed at Speaker Pelosi sound especially scary.
The would-be attacker reportedly spoke directly to the Speaker on at least one occasion. The Speaker, it's worth noting, is one of several top U.S. officials to receive Secret Service protection. The arrest appears to be the second associated with right-wing opposition to the Affordable Care Act, following yesterday's reports of a Washington man who was taken into custody after threatening to kill Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). In related news, reader H.S. alerted me to a report in Tennessee in which someone claiming to be a Tea Party activist sent Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) an email that read in part, "If our tea parties had hoods, we would burn your ass on a cross on the White House lawn." The incident has been reported to the Capitol Police and the FBI office in Memphis. It's a good thing conservatives spent a year whipping confused, right-wing activists into a frenzy with overheated, apocalyptic, and deceptive rhetoric about health care reform, isn't it? —Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
FOX NEWS MAKES ITS OWN 'DAISY' AD.... In one of the most famous campaign commercials of all time, LBJ showed a little girl picking at a daisy, followed by images of nuclear explosion. The point wasn't subtle -- that Goldwater guy could kill us all. Today, Fox News borrowed a page from the "Daisy" playbook, suggesting a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia could lead to the nuclear annihilation of the United States. Anchor/activist Megyn Kelly, en route to a commercial break, noted that President Obama is en route to Prague. "[C]ritics are asking, will the new deal leave the U.S. defenseless until it's too late? Coming up, next hour," Kelly said. At that point, Fox News cut to footage of a nuclear explosion and giant mushroom cloud. Two quick thoughts here. First, the arms deal with Russia is a pretty big deal, but it's not that big a deal. No sane person could possibly believe that the treaty could "leave the U.S. defenseless." The U.S. will still have a large arsenal, with the capacity to destroy the planet many times over. For Kelly to say this on the air is painfully ridiculous. And second, how is anyone supposed to do parodies of Fox News when the Republican network airs madness like this with a straight face? —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
WATCH FOR RIFTS IN THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM.... A few months ago, extreme right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) chatted with radical TV preacher Pat Robertson on "The 700 Club." I suggested at the time that the combined crazy quotient was enough to nearly cause a rift in the space-time continuum. We'll apparently face a similar space-time threat any minute now in Minnesota. Time's Michael Scherer had this report today.
I guess I should feel bad, then, for forgetting that the event was today. The truth is, Palin and Bachmann represent the worst American politics has to offer. I can appreciate the fact that the media is excited to have them share a stage, and there will no doubt be a strong turnout of far-right activists -- a reported 10,000 tickets were distributed -- but that doesn't change the fact that these two right-wing politicians are a scary duo of reactionary ignorance, dishonesty, and unhinged conspiracy theories. They'll be joined by Sean Hannity, which only helps prove the point. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), anxious to prove himself sufficiently crazy to the Republican base, will join the hyper-conservatives at the event -- a step the one-time moderate never would have even considered a few years ago. That today's event will receive considerable attention should be cause for embarrassment among sensible Republicans, not celebration. The DNC, meanwhile, released a short video today, reminding the public that the stars of today's show really are crazy. Post Script: The event is apparently intended to help Bachmann's re-election campaign, but it's worth noting that the gathering will take place in Rep. Keith Ellison's (D) district. —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
WHAT USED TO BE A BIPARTISAN GOAL.... Every time President Obama's goal of reducing -- and eventually, eliminating -- nuclear weapons comes to the fore, some on the right see grounds for mockery. A year ago, for example, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, with a child-like tone, equated eliminating nuclear arsenals with missiles that "can shoot dandelions," and altering the one-dollar bill to encourage Americans to "turn their frowns upside down." Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani followed suit, trying to once again pretend he knows what he's talking about.
Let's set the record straight here. JFK spoke often of eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons. So did Truman. Ronald Reagan -- someone Giuliani may have heard of -- called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." "[F]or the eight years I was president," Reagan wrote in his memoirs, "I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind." President Obama's approach is very much in line with the bipartisan approach outlined three years ago by George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's easier for clowns like Giuliani to mock than think, but there's really nothing naive or fanciful about the president's vision. Obama has conceded that eliminating nuclear arsenals is not likely to happen in his lifetime, but he's said we can begin the work with a variety of short- and long-term tasks, including U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a new arms treaty with Russia, a new initiative to secure all vulnerable nuclear material, the creation of an international fuel bank as part of a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, and the approach outlined this week in the Nuclear Posture Review. To dismiss this as an effort to have us "all hold hands, sing songs, and have peace symbols," is a reminder that Giuliani considers national security issues with all the seriousness of a child with crayons. Greg Sargent reminds us today that Giuliani's resume "boasts no meaningful national security experience of any kind." Greg added, "Someone needs to tell the bookers at the networks that the fact that Rudy Giuliani happened to get photographed walking through the smoke and dust on 9/11 does not give him any authority or credibility on foreign policy and national security issues." —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
TIME TO PICK UP THE PACE ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS.... President Obama had a real opportunity to reshape the direction of the federal judiciary, and set it on a more progressive path. That opportunity is slipping away.
There are now more than 100 vacancies on the federal bench. They need to be filled. To be sure, an important part of the problem is the unprecedented obstructionism from Senate Republicans. GOP senators have blocked strong nominees for no reason, and brought the entire process to a crawl. And while that is clearly scandalous, it's also true that the Obama White House isn't sending enough judicial nominees to the Senate for consideration. At this point in Clinton's presidency, the president had nominated 65 district court picks. For Bush, it was 70. Obama, however, has only nominated 38. The current president has only seen 11 of his district court nominees confirmed -- less than a third of Bush's total from this point in his presidency, and Bush had a more evenly-divided Senate. (See chart below) I'm not even sure why Obama is coming up short on this front. Yes, he has a fuller plate and longer to-do list than any modern president, but the White House surely has a team of officials who work on judicial nominations who don't have to deal with the economic crisis, the wars, health care, etc. Even if Republicans would likely block most of the president's would-be jurists, shouldn't the White House at least be sending more nominees to the Senate? Veteran NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg recently said the administration has been incredibly slow in making nominations to the federal courts, and describing it as "frankly confounding." A dozen law professors from elite schools sent the president a letter in February urging him to act with "far more energy and dispatch" on this. That was good advice.
'THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT'.... [Note: I'm re-publishing a clearer, more coherent version of this post after a few clarifications and unnecessary corrections appeared in the original.] I have some fairly serious concerns about congressional Republicans. In fact, my list of concerns is pretty long, and keeps growing. GOP lawmakers, with frightening frequency, seem to struggle with honesty, integrity, seriousness of purpose, decency, intellectual curiosity, etc. But perhaps nothing is as disconcerting as the fact that congressional Republicans usually appear to have no idea what they're talking about. On nearly every major policy matter, GOP officials -- the ones elected to help shape federal policy -- seem to have no working knowledge of any issue. For example, Vanity Fair contributing editor and best-selling author Michael Lewis recently reflected on his experience talking to a House Republican book group about his work documenting the near-collapse of the financial markets.
Lewis wasn't just talking to Hill staffers. On the clip, he notes that he, much to his surprise, ended up speaking to House Republican lawmakers and their aides. Now, it may seem understandable that these Republicans were ignorant about what transpired when the economy collapsed. This is, after all, a complicated matter, involving complex financial mechanisms that most Americans never have to deal with. But I'm not especially inclined to cut these lawmakers slack. Michael Lewis' talk with the GOP's book group was in December -- 16 months after the crash that pushed the global economy to the brink of collapse. Indeed, the timing is worth appreciating for context. Lewis talked to these House Republicans -- the ones who "didn't understand" the scope of the issue -- about the crisis on Dec. 3. Nine days later, the House approved a bill reforming Wall Street, and every single Republican in the chamber opposed the legislation. When RNC Chairman Michael Steele conceded in January that he isn't sure whether Republicans are ready to lead, he was on to something. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In March, DNC fundraising was even stronger than RNC fundraising, $13 million to $11.4 million. Given that this was the RNC's strongest-ever March in a non-presidential-election year, the DNC's total -- driven in large part by the success of health care reform -- is pretty impressive. * In Illinois, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Mark Kirk (R) leading state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) in this year's Senate race, 37% to 33%. Undecided voters total 30%. * Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary appears to be getting increasingly less competitive. A new Quinnipiac poll finds Sen. Arlen Specter leading Rep. Joe Sestak, 53% to 32%. * Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has invested another $20 million from her own bank account into her Republican gubernatorial campaign in California. Whitman has now spent $59 million of her own money on the race -- and it's only April, and she hasn't even won her primary yet. * Rumors are getting pretty loud about Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) considering retirement. * Speaking of Michigan, a new EPIC/MRA poll shows Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R) out in front in the state's gubernatorial contest. * With former Rep. Eric Massa (D) gone, Democratic officials in New York's 29th are rallying behind Matthew Zeller, an Army veteran with family roots in New York's Southern Tier, to run this year. * As expected, Stephene Moore announced yesterday she will run for the seat currently occupied by her husband, retiring Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). * And in Louisiana, porn star Stormy Daniels had talked about running against scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter (R), but yesterday, Daniels said she's joining the GOP. The announcement appeared to be tongue-in-cheek: "It is time again to inspire positive risks and out-of-the-box thinking in the interest of growing a strong economy and a strong America," Daniels said in a press release. "For me, this spirit can be summed up in the RNC's investment of donor funds at Voyeur." —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
A NEW NUCLEAR POSTURE.... The Obama administration released its Nuclear Posture Review yesterday, outlining -- and limiting -- the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. It's "an important down payment on a saner nuclear policy," and the first meaningful shift in U.S. thinking since the end of the Cold War. Naturally, Republicans are "outraged." They always are. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose understanding of national security issues is a fantasy of media bookers, told CNN yesterday, "I think the only thing that would work with Iran is they're thinking that there's a military consequence that could be faced if they become nuclear, and the farther he moves away from that, the more difficult his role with Iran is going to be." It's as if the right doesn't bother to learn about the policy before condemning it.
Fred Kaplan also had a good piece on the Nuclear Posture Review, including an explanation of how the administration perceives the purpose of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal.
Such an approach hasn't even been considered since the start of the Cold War. It's a welcome and overdue change. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
ALL PANDERING, ALL THE TIME.... Dave Weigel reports this week on a new video that reinforces a larger point about Republicans and their base.
In the general sense, this is hardly startling -- a Republican House member, running for the Senate, telling Republican activists that he'd "consider" repealing the entire Affordable Care Act, just as soon as the GOP is running the entire federal government again. But consider the context here. Castle has long been one of the least conservative Republicans in Congress. It's how he managed to become one of Delaware's most popular political figures. He's cruising in this year's Senate race; he isn't facing a credible primary challenge; and he's running in a left-leaning state that backed Obama/Biden two years ago with a whopping 61% of the vote. And yet, Mike Castle still feels compelled to pander to right-wing voters. Even in Tennessee, Sen. Bob Corker (R) was willing to say about repeal, "The fact is that's not going to happen, OK?" Castle, the so-called moderate, actually managed to take a more conservative line than the Tennessee Republican. To be sure, Castle is heavily favored to win the Senate contest. When sizing up the midterms, it's practically considered a sure-thing. Maybe it's why the GOP congressman doesn't mind pandering -- he feels like the race in the bag, and he won't be punished by Delaware voters anyway. But it's the kind of campaign dynamic that Dems, in theory, could capitalize on. I can see the ads now: "Mike Castle says he's a moderate, but he admits he'd consider repealing health care protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions. Castle is open to taking away health coverage away from 32 million middle-class Americans. Castle acknowledged he, if elected, might take away tax breaks for millions of small businesses...." —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
GOING TO THE TROUBLE OF HOSTING A FAKE PROM.... There's been an ongoing controversy in Fulton, Mississippi, about a lesbian high school student, Constance McMillen, who wanted to go to her prom with her girlfriend. The school district learned of her intentions, and quickly intervened, banning same-sex prom dates. McMillen and the ACLU threatened to sue, prompting the district to cancel the prom altogether. Eventually, a compromise of sorts was reached -- there would be a privately-sponsored prom, organized by parents, with school officials as chaperones. McMillen and her girlfriend could attend. At least, that's what was supposed to happen.
The prom, in other words, was a sham. The rest of the student body was encouraged to attend the real prom at a local country club, with McMillen excluded. I realize it's a small, Southern town, but I'm hard pressed to imagine why locals would go to so much trouble. Sure, they hate gays. And sure, their bigotry has clearly interfered with their character and judgment. But why not just have a prom and ignore the students locals don't like? Why be this callous towards one of their neighbors? —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)
A RHETORICAL SHIFT ON TERRORISM.... If recent history is any indication, there will be a fair amount of conservative complaining today about this development.
We can probably guess what'll happen next -- the Cheneys, Giuliani, and assorted media personalities will no doubt tell us the administration can't be taken seriously on counter-terrorism unless it uses the word "Islamic" all the time. There's probably no point in taking this on as part of a substantive debate, but it's nevertheless worth noting that just two years ago this month, the Bush/Cheney administration launched a new effort to change the way U.S. officials communicated on this issue. In fact, Bush/Cheney issued guidelines, entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication," urging officials to stop describing extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," and to drop "Islamo-fascism" altogether. "It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo said in bold italic lettering. The memo was distributed widely by federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, explaining to U.S. officials at every level that the rhetoric preferred by far-right activists actually undermines our foreign policy and national security interests. Even Karen Hughes recently conceded, "We ought to avoid the language of religion. Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have." So, when Republicans and their allies throw a fit today, be sure to check to see if they had a similar reaction when Bush/Cheney took similar steps two years ago. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GOP MINORITY OUTREACH.... Shortly after the 2008 presidential election, Sophia Nelson, a former congressional staffer and a black Republican, had an op-ed piece lamenting the fact that her party seems wholly disinterested in minority outreach. I thought about Nelson's piece after seeing the latest moves from Virginia's new Republican leadership. (via TS)
McDonnell apparently went out of his way to make his declaration as insulting as possible. Virginia's last two governors -- Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- scrapped the practice of annual Confederate resolutions altogether, while Virginia's last Republican governor, Jim Gilmore, included anti-slavery language in his resolution. McDonnell turned back the clock, honoring those who fought against the United States, and neglecting entirely to mention slavery. Adam Serwer noted, "[N]ot only does McDonnell venerate those who took up arms against their own country, he does so without acknowledging that the institution for which they fought was the right to preserve the right to own human beings as slaves. He then papers over the horrors of reconstruction, lynching, and Jim Crow that followed." Del. Kenneth Cooper Alexander (D), chairman of Virginia's Legislative Black Caucus, added, "Governor McDonnell's proclamation was offensive and offered a disturbing revision of the Civil War and the brutal era that followed. Virginia has worked hard to move beyond the very things for which Governor McDonnell seems nostalgic." James McPherson, dean of Civil War scholars, described McDonnell's proclamation as "obnoxious." I'd just add McDonnell, a graduate of radical TV preacher Pat Robertson's college, was only too pleased to present himself to voters last year as a relative moderate. Indeed, the governor capitalized on friendly support (though not an official endorsement) from former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder (D), the first African-American governor in the nation since Reconstruction. But the facade didn't last after McDonnell's inauguration. It's the funny thing about conservative Republicans who downplay their ideology to get elected -- they invariably stop pretending just as soon as they're in positions of authority. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
WHEN IT RAINS AT THE RNC, IT POURS.... One of these days, the RNC will go an entire afternoon without suffering some new embarrassment. I'm just not sure when that day might come. It certainly wasn't yesterday. In late November, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele pushed out his communications director, and brought on controversial GOP strategist Alex Castellanos to help shape the party's message. On CNN yesterday, Castellanos not only announced that he's parting ways with the RNC, he also suggested Steele should resign.
Castellanos' announcement came on the heels of news that a leading New Hampshire Republican member decided to resign from the national RNC, in part to protest the party's recent problems. These departures follow Monday's staff shake-up, with RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay being shown the door, and strategist Curt Anderson also leaving. By all accounts, morale at the RNC is low, and "staffers at all levels of the RNC are eyeing the exits." For his part, the beleaguered Steele spent much of yesterday "calling rank-and-file members to reassure them that the RNC is on stable footing." He was even able to share some good news for the party -- the RNC raised $11.4 million in March, the best March in RNC history in a non-presidential-election year. The haul was likely the result of rank-and-file Republicans who were outraged by improvements to the health care system. Nevertheless, the disarray at RNC headquarters yesterday appeared to get worse, not better, and many in the party keep wondering how many more shoes there are to drop. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
April 6, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Rescue efforts have been suspended at the mine near Montcoal, West Virginia. * An overhaul of the U.S. approach to nuclear security: "President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for 'outliers like Iran and North Korea' that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation." * A unanimous appeals court decision is a major blow to net neutrality: "Comcast on Tuesday won its federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission in a ruling that undermines the agency's ability to regulate Internet service providers just as it unrolls a sweeping broadband agenda." * Afghan President Hamid Karzai was scheduled to visit the White House in mid-May. Given Karzai's increasingly erratic behavior, the visit is now in doubt. * Iraq: "Coordinated bombings across Baghdad destroyed seven buildings and killed at least 35 people on Tuesday, Iraqi authorities said, bringing the number slain around the capital in the last five days to more than 100." * Concerns over Greece's debt crisis linger. * Don't be surprised if U.S. taxpayers make a net profit from the bank bailouts. * After MSNBC learned that David Shuster had auditioned for a new show at CNN, MSNBC suspended Shuster "indefinitely." * Colleges are cutting costs everywhere, "even at schools that have no cost." * It's surprisingly common how often I wonder whether Weekly Standard pieces are parodies. That's not a good sign. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
TRAGEDY IN WEST VIRGINIA.... As most Americans are surely aware, a mine explosion near Montcoal, West Virginia, killed 25 miners yesterday, with four others missing and rescue efforts still underway. It is the worst U.S. coal mining disaster since 1984, and it's safe to say the best wishes of the entire nation go out to the families and communities affected by the tragedy. It's not a political story, per se, but when the immediacy of the crisis fades, there are some questions that political figures will definitely want answers to. Massey Energy, for example, will be asked to explain its safety record.
As recently as last month, safety inspectors said miners at this location faced significant risks, citing the mine for "failing to control dust; improperly planning to ventilate the mine of dust and the combustible gas methane; inadequate protection from roof falls; failing to maintain proper escapeways; and allowing the accumulation of combustible materials." If Blankenship's name sounds familiar, it's because he's been a prominent global warming denier, and in recent years, "financed a take-over of the State Supreme Court that wound up setting U.S. Supreme Court precedent around politics and the judiciary, and then tried to take over the legislature." Blankenship is also a strident opponent of labor unions. Yesterday's mine accident occurred at a site with non-union workers. Congress has already signaled its intention to investigate yesterday's disaster, and some Democratic lawmakers have dispatched committee staffers to the Upper Big Branch South mine to collect information to be used in future hearings. Among the areas to get renewed attention will be federal mine-safety reforms, many of which were proposed in 2006 but blocked. The proposals included measure to seal abandoned mines where methane can build up, safer conveyor belts, improved ventilation, and stiffer penalties against companies that violate safety laws. Many believe the reforms stand a much better chance of passage this year, in part because of yesterday's explosion, and in part because there's a Democratic majority in Congress more concerned with worker safety than industry complaints about "burdensome" regulations. —Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
MAN THREATENING SEN. MURRAY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.... After excessive amounts of overheated rhetoric during the debate over health care reform, a few too many Democratic lawmakers faced threats from unhinged activists. It's good to know law enforcement officials are taking these threats seriously, and aren't afraid to make arrests when warranted. (thanks to K.Z. for the tip)
According to officials, Wilson began making menacing calls months ago, but as the vote drew nearer, so too did the intensity of his anger. It culminated in expletive-laced messages in which Wilson said he wanted to kill the Democratic senator, and specifically referenced his expectation that it would only take a single piece of lead. This is, as far as I can tell, the first arrest associated with right-wing opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Last week, a Philadelphia man was charged with threatening House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), but the deranged man had also threatened a variety of other officials, and was motivated by his belief that he is tasked by God to eliminate evil -- in other words, it wasn't related to health care legislation. —Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
'MOSTLY FREE'.... The Heritage Foundation, one of the right's leading think tanks, has downgraded the United States on its "Index of Economic Freedom," which ranks the planet's 179 countries. Americans were "free," Heritage found, but now we're only "mostly free."
So, who are the shining beacons of liberty -- i.e., countries that meet the Heritage threshold for being actually economically free? The United States is eighth, behind Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada, in that order. Yes, the Heritage Foundation would be more satisfied if our economic freedoms were more in line with countries that have socialized medicine, impose higher tax rates, and in Ireland's case, is in need of a massive bailout to prevent a catastrophe. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)
WHY IS NEWT ON MY TEEVEE?.... Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was on NBC's "Today" show earlier, ostensibly to offer some support for beleaguered RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Gingrich suggested it's "foolish" for Republicans to focus on Steele's scandals when "it's better to focus on Democrats." But while he was there, the former Speaker also shared his thoughts on the Affordable Care Act.
Gingrich also appeared on "Fox & Friends" this morning, and made a nearly identical claim. Two quick thoughts here. First, Gingrich is lying about the IRS agents. It's not even close to being true. FactCheck.org scrutinized the charge last week and concluded that's a "wildly inaccurate claim," predicated on "outright misrepresentation." Every objective analysis of the claim has found it unsupportable. Newt's casual disregard for reality continues to be tiresome. Second, why is Newt Gingrich on "Today" in the first place? The pseudo-intellectual clown hasn't held public office since the '90s. He was driven from his leadership post in disgrace -- by members of his own party -- nearly 12 years ago. Will "Today" also call on former House Speakers Jim Wright (D-Texas) and Tom Foley (D-Wash.) for their thoughts on current events? (For the record, I can't find any record of either of them appearing on "Today" at any point in the last 15 years.) I'm not especially surprised -- "Meet the Press" had Gingrich on as a guest five times in 2009, more than any other any other political figure in the United States -- but it's frustrating, especially when his bogus claims go unchecked on the air. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
A DIFFERENT KIND OF 'LOUISIANA PURCHASE'.... There are 14 states (and counting) launching odd lawsuits against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and 13 are the result of conservative Republican state attorneys general. The exception is Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, a Democrat. Not knowing much about Caldwell, I'd assumed that he, like many Dems in Louisiana, is far more conservative than the party at large. It also seemed likely that Caldwell might have his intentions set on higher office, and thought his role in this lawsuit might help. But Amanda Terkel and Matt Yglesias have flagged an interesting report from a small Louisiana paper that suggests there may be more going on behind the scenes with this case.
It's worth emphasizing that the report in the Eunice News, published late last week, has not been confirmed elsewhere, and neither the governor nor the state AG have commented publicly on the alleged deal. But if the report is accurate, it would not only be a pretty significant scandal for Jindal, it would also put the notion of a "Louisiana Purchase" and controversial, secret "backroom deals" in a whole new, bipartisan light. Update: I've heard from Kyle Plotkin, Jindal's press secretary, who claims there is "absolutely no truth" to the allegations reported in the local paper. Plotkin went on to argue that the claim is "ridiculous." I'm still doing some digging on this, but there's the official denial. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma is conservative. I mean, really conservative. By some measures, he's the single most far-right senator in a caucus filled with far-right senators. And yet, he seems to get along pretty well -- at least on a personal level -- with his Democratic colleagues. Indeed, Coburn and a senator by the name of Barack Obama became good friends. How does this happen? Perhaps because of instances like this one.
Based on local press reports, it seems much of Coburn's town-hall event continued in that vein. When he mentioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Coburn described her as "a nice lady." When the room booed and hissed, Coburn told them, "Come on now. She is nice - how many of you all have met her? She's a nice person." Coburn also encouraged his audience, "[D]on't catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody is no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don't know what they don't know." Keep in mind, conservative lawmakers calling out Fox News in public like this is exceedingly rare, if not completely unheard of. For the Senate's most conservative senator to defend Pelosi's character while criticizing Fox News is so unusual, I had to double-check to make sure the article wasn't published on April 1. (It wasn't.) I suppose the next question, then, is what Fox News is going to do about it. In general, even mild criticism from notable figures is enough for the network to attack the critic, publicly and aggressively. Michael Scherer wondered, "So what is Fox News going to do with Tom Coburn.... Has Coburn been co-opted by the Socialists? Too much French food?" The Republican network will probably remain silent -- conservative Republicans are nearly always exempt from Fox News pushback -- but it'll be worth keeping an eye on. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In Nevada, Rasmussen shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing all of his Republican challengers in hypothetical match-ups, in margins ranging from 7 to 15 points. * In Pennsylvania, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Sen. Arlen Specter (D) by three, 46% to 43%. Toomey leads Specter's primary opponent, Rep. Joe Sestak (D) by six. * We learned this week about former Rep. John Kasich, Ohio's Republican gubernatorial hopeful, benefited from a lucrative compensation package from Lehman Brothers as it collapsed in 2008. Yesterday, incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D) called on Kasich to release his income tax returns. * In Indiana, corporate lobbyist Dan Coats is making opposition to cap-and-trade part of his Republican Senate campaign. In 2008, however, Coats lobbied in support of cap-and-trade on behalf of one of his clients. * With Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) distancing herself from labor unions in her re-election bid, the Communications Workers of America is launching a new TV ad, blasting Lincoln over her ties to "Washington special interests." * Now that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is distancing himself from his "maverick" label, his primary challenger, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), is pouncing. "If you're scoring at home, how many reversals is this?" Hayworth said. "He's moving away from legislative reversals into branding reversals. It's the new John McCain, non-maverick edition, for the Arizona Senate election." * Speaking of Arizona, the DSCC was disappointed to learn that attorney and businesswoman Nan Stockholm Walden has decided not to run for the Senate this year. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
'COLLATERAL MURDER'.... Yesterday saw the release of a horrifying new video, documenting a 2007 attack in which a U.S. military helicopter killed a group of civilians, including two Reuters journalists, in a Baghdad suburb. WikiLeaks, which originally published the video, is calling the incident "Collateral Murder," and after watching the clip, it's not hard to understand why.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, military officials said the helicopter had been dispatched to assist U.S. troops who'd come under small-arms fire."There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force," Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad, said at the time. According to the NYT, the authenticity of the video has been confirmed by a senior American military official. It shows no hostile action among those who were killed. I can only assume, and hope, that the release of the classified video will prompt a more thorough investigation into exactly what transpired, and the extent to which there was a cover-up to keep information about the attack hidden from public scrutiny. Here is the video, but please note, it includes graphic images and should almost certainly be considered not safe for work.
YOUNG EAGLES SPREAD THEIR WINGS.... That unfortunate Republican National Committee event at Voyeur West Hollywood has become a humiliating headache for the party, but it's also bringing some attention to the RNC's "Young Eagles" fundraising program, which was responsible for the event at the bondage-themed nightclub in the first place. The point of the program is to cultivate relationships with younger GOP donors, with the hopes of establishing a long-term -- and lucrative -- connection.
A former Young Eagle told Politico that "everything that's cool from a pop culture perspective is Democratic," forcing the RNC to look beyond traditional fundraising events. The result, he said is "a fun group" for young party donors. "If you've got a little insecurity complex, but you've got money -- what a cool group to hang out with." If this strikes you as rather sad, we're thinking along the same lines. As it turns out, though, perhaps the most embarrassing part of the Young Eagles fundraising program is that it wasn't much of a fundraising program. Half of the group's own co-chairmen hadn't contributed to the party, and last year, only four young (under 46) donors had donated the required $7,500 for the highest level of membership. As a result, it appears Young Eagle events were held, at great expense, for Republicans who weren't contributing much, if anything, to the party trying to impress them. As Josh Marshall explained, "Obviously the way this is supposed to work is that you give these richies a lot of free stuff and they end up giving you back a whole lot more in political contributions. But apparently no one was watching the inflows and outflows very closely.... Reading this piece I found it hard to tell whether this was just a good way to blow a lot of money on events for rich kids who didn't actually give much money or some sort of nerd empowerment program gone terribly wrong." As for whether the costs of the Young Eagles program outweighed the benefits, the turmoil at RNC headquarters should make the answer clear. —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
'WE ARE IN THE ERA OF CRAZINESS'.... Life-long Republican Chris Currey has a thoughtful piece over at David Frum's place, explaining his belief that his party has lost its mind. Currey doesn't exactly break new ground -- his fears and concerns will no doubt seem familiar to most who keep up with current events -- but his piece is worth reading anyway.
Probably, at least as far as today's Republican base is concerned. Currey, like Northern Republicans from a half-century ago, applauded the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. He opposed Medicare at the time, but has since come to recognize its importance to society. He voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, and doesn't feel as if his values or priorities have changed.
I, not surprisingly, find all of this quite compelling. But it also reinforces my biggest concern about the midterm elections. When a party becomes as radical and irresponsible as the Republican Party of 2010 has become, the only way to bring it to its senses is for it to suffer electoral humiliation. The GOP went sharply to the right after the 2004 elections, and it lost in 2006. Republicans then went even further to the right, and lost in 2008. In response, they went even further still to the right. If 2010 is an electoral bonanza for the GOP, the party will assume that the way a party wins elections is to have its members become stark raving mad. If 2010 is another humiliating failure for the GOP, the party may be more inclined to identify their most ridiculous and dangerous habits, and consider where they went wrong. Republicans appear to have lost Chris Currey, and with good reason. But unless Currey has a lot of like-minded friends voting in November, the party won't bother to try and get him back. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)
THE WRITEDOWN HYPE.... Opponents of health care reform threw every argument they could think of to derail the initiative, but the Affordable Care Act passed anyway. But the right isn't quite finished coming up with new criticisms. The latest, pushed aggressively in recent weeks by the far-right editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, has to do with the corporate "writedown" problem. The NYT has a good editorial on this today.
It's the key reason this argument hasn't really gone anywhere, and Wall Street didn't care about the corporate announcements -- the impact is so negligible, no one outside the Wall Street Journal's editorial board really cared. Even Republican lawmakers haven't bothered to push this with any enthusiasm. With the same companies affected by the change already profiting from subsidies in the Medicare Part D law, corporations are hardly in a position to complain.
The Obama administration has also been pushing back against this, as evidenced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke's op-ed last week: "Don't Believe the Writedown Hype." But the bottom line (so to speak) remains the same. Kevin Drum had a good piece on this last week: "[I]t turns out that corporations who qualify for this sweetheart deal accounted for it as a future addition to their earnings stream. Now the stream is gone -- after 2013, anyway -- so they have to reverse that accounting charge. It's very sad. Still, there's no actual money involved. No one has to write a check to anyone else. Corporations just have to add a footnote to their next quarterly report saying that the government has come to its senses and will no longer allow them to write off an expense that the government is paying for in the first place." —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
ENSIGN STANDS ALONE.... With the likelihood of a criminal indictment against Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada apparently growing, it's worth paying attention to how the larger GOP apparatus -- both in D.C. and in Nevada -- prepares itself. Do Republicans rally in support of their long-time ally, or do they stop returning his phone calls? Clearly, the latter is happening, and it's not just because of the nature of Ensign's sex/ethics/corruption scandal. It's also because no one actually likes the guy. The Las Vegas Sun's J. Patrick Coolican has a devastating piece this week, "deconstructing" John Ensign. Rachel Maddow described it as "one of the most brutal hometown paper takedowns I've ever seen of a sitting senator," and I couldn't agree more.
The portrait isn't pretty. Republicans marveled at Ensign's selfishness, arrogance, and "narcissism." He's mistreated his staff, ignored the needs of his state party, preferred to remain uninterested and ignorant about public policy at every level, and offered self-righteous lectures on morality to his associates. And Ensign, of course, carried on an illicit affair with his best friend's wife. We've seen many instances in recent years in which Republicans will rally behind a scandal-plagued ally, regardless of circumstances, out of a combination of loyalty, partisanship, and camaraderie. But Ensign has no real support right now -- from anyone -- because he's never bothered to care about anyone but himself and "a small, insular group of advisers," described by one Nevada Republican as the "cult of Ensign." The question isn't whether Ensign should resign. The question is whether anyone would miss him if he stepped down in disgrace. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
RNC FLOUNDERING CONTINUES.... After a humiliating week last week, the Republican National Committee hoped to get back on track quickly. It had already fired one staffer, "Young Eagles" events had been scrapped, and the RNC managed to go the whole weekend without any new scandals emerging. Late yesterday, however, we saw the latest evidence of a party in total disarray.
Forcing McKay's ouster was apparently intended to prove that Steele was taking charge and cleaning house. Republicans are angry about donor money being spent at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex"? The beleaguered chairman wants to show he's putting things right. The move may have actually made things worse. With McKay sacked, a major GOP consulting firm with long-standing ties to Steele announced it is severing all ties to the national party. Worse, McKay will be replaced by Steele loyalist Mike Leavitt. ABC News reported that this "could spell even more trouble for the RNC," since Leavitt's overbearing style has already led four RNC staffers to quit since February. Complicating matters further, former Ambassador Sam Fox, one of the Republican National Committee's biggest and most important fundraisers, announced yesterday that he, too, is severing his ties to the national party, in large part because he had "lost confidence" in the RNC chairman. Steele, in turn, elevated fundraiser Neil Alpert -- who has a record of using his employer's money to pay his "night club bills." Any chance the internal turmoil will calm the nerves of RNC donors? It seems unlikely. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
April 5, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Pakistan: "In the most direct attack on an American facility in Pakistan in years, militants mounted a multipronged assault against the United States Consulate in this northern city on Monday, using a truck bomb, machine guns and rocket launchers, Pakistani and American officials said." At least 6 Pakistanis were killed and 20 wounded. * In an apparent bid to destroy his credibility and standing, Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened to join the Taliban unless the West pulls back from its demands for reform. * GOP obstructionism has consequences: "Thanks to congressional inaction, more than 200,000 laid-off workers could lose access to unemployment benefits this week, and no flood insurance policies will be renewed or issued until Congress returns on April 12 -- despite record long-term joblessness and record rainfall." * A pretty major earthquake rocked Mexico's Baja California peninsula Sunday, and could be felt throughout much of the Southwestern U.S. * Iraq: "Three car bombs detonated near foreign embassies in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 32 people and wounding more than 200, security officials said." * A deadly cover-up after "badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February" in Afghanistan. * And speaking of deadly cover-ups, a secret video was leaked today of "a U.S. Army Apache helicopter in Baghdad in 2007 repeatedly opening fire on a group of men that included a Reuters photographer and his driver -- and then on a van that stopped to rescue one of the wounded men." * Drone strikes continue to batter al Qaeda. * NHTSA will seek a civil judgment of $16.375 million against Toyota. * It can be a little confusing to see the unemployment rate go up when the economy adds jobs. The WaPo had a good piece on why this happens. * The Turkish ambassador to the U.S. comes back. * The fiscal crisis facing Greece has not yet been resolved. * I'm deeply skeptical about charter schools for a reason. * When it comes to science, evidence, and climate, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) isn't very bright. * Fact checking the Sunday shows. * The truth about for-profit higher ed. * Fact-checking Marc Thiessen's error-ridden book is challenging, but Media Matters is up to the task. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
FEARED RAGE FAILS TO MATERIALIZE.... About a week ago, as Congress' two-week recess was getting underway, Christina Bellantoni noted "there are real concerns" among Democrats "about the next two weeks of Congressional recess spiraling out of control." And by "out of control," Dems were thinking, "similar to last August." Lawmakers' so-called Spring Break is about half done, and so far, ugly scenes have largely been avoided.
It hasn't been entirely peaceful. Rep. Tim Ryan (D) of Ohio had to cancel a public meeting last week after threats of right-wing violence. Rep. Betsy Markey (D) of Colorado had to host a scheduled town-hall meeting on the telephone because of similar threats. In New Hampshire, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) arguably faced the most August-like circumstances -- far-right lobbying groups targeted one of her events, and the congresswoman was confronted with hundreds of screaming conservatives. But in nearly every other instance, the replay of last summer's enraged right-wing activism hasn't materialized. Evan McMorris-Santoro explained that Democrats, many of whom were genuinely worried about safety, took steps that "led to quieter, dare I suggest more boring, town halls this week -- the stuff of the C-Span junkie's dreams, maybe, but probably not the place where you're likely to get your finger bitten off." If I had to guess, I'd say the biggest difference is the lack of entities with deep pockets whipping the base into a frenzy, and then organizing that collective rage. In August, there was no shortage of corporate/lobbying groups, including the poorly-named Conservatives for Patients Rights, eyeing the recess as an opportunity to kill health care reform through intimidation. The outfits would find sympathetic conservatives, and get them to public meetings. These same organizations would do the legwork -- telling activists why to be angry, who to be angry with, and how best to express their anger. This recess? Not so much. —Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
IN DEFENSE OF THE EAST COAST.... A certain former half-term governor doesn't seem to care for one U.S. region in particular.
Now, the notion that the public is clamoring for programming like "Real American Stories" is itself a dubious claim -- the ratings were underwhelming. Nevertheless, when conservatives slam the East Coast, they're not really talking about the entire East Coast. Indeed, we know this with some certainty -- during her inexplicable campaign for national office, Palin described parts of rural North Carolina as "the real America." That the state borders the Atlantic Ocean was apparently not a disqualifying factor. Instead, we can probably assume that those who thumb their nose at the "East Coast" are really referring to the tens of millions of people who live between Northern Virginia and Maine -- not including central Pennsylvania, rural parts of upstate New York, and those odd folks who thought it'd be a good idea to make Scott Brown a United States senator. Politically, this isn't terribly surprising -- conservatives routinely take a dismissive tone towards the region -- it is an odd electoral strategy. Matt Yglesias noted, "It's hard to imagine a political figure with national aspirations wanting to publicly trash any comparably sized region of the United States for no real reason." Quite right. We just never hear high-profile political figures embracing this kind of elitist attitude towards other parts of the country. Those who hope to maintain national popularity don't just casually dismiss the Midwest, the Southeast, the Sun Belt, the Plains states, or the West Coast, just because he/she finds those areas unacceptable. So, why do it? Because Palin knows this is just how right-wing voices are supposed to see the country. As Paul Krugman explained, "[T]hese days, insulting large blocs of Americans, implying that the rural and small-town and (ahem) white minority is the only genuine part of the country, seems to be cost-free." —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) recently touched on right-wing demands that the Affordable Care Act be repealed in its entirety. "The fact is that's not going to happen, OK?" Corker said. He later sought to clarify, telling The Weekly Standard that repeal isn't possible as long as President Obama is in the White House, though he also hedged on whether he'd commit to supporting repeal in 2013. Right-wing radio host Mark Levin blasted Corker for his disloyalty to the right-wing cause.
As a substantive matter, Levin's mockery is pretty foolish. No serious person could find it credible to compare the Affordable Care Act to British rule over the American colonies. But note what constitutes a "moderate" in right-wing circles these days. The always-helpful VoteView analysis ranks lawmakers from the most liberal to the most conservative. In the current Congress, #1 is Bernie Sanders (furthest to the left), #100 is Tom Coburn (furthest to the right). Bob Corker ranks #88 -- meaning only 12 senators are to his right. This year, based solely on his voting record, Corker is to the right of notable conservatives like John Thune, David Vitter, Sam Brownback Mitch McConnell, and Orrin Hatch. Bob Corker is not only to the right of most senators, he's to the right of most Republican senators. But for some contingents of the far-right base, Corker's a moderate who isn't to be trusted? It's a reminder of just how far gone some of the GOP base really is. —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
REAPING WHAT ONE SOWS ON THE CENSUS, CONT'D.... We talked last week about the efforts of prominent right-wing voices, who've argued that the U.S. census is not to be trusted. From strange members of Congress (Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul) to strange media personalities (Glenn Beck and Neal Boortz), there's been an ongoing effort to make conservatives fear the constitutionally-mandated process. To the consternation of Republicans who know better, the anti-census effort may be having an effect. The party is starting to get more actively concerned about the consequences of right-wing paranoia related to the census spreading.
How worried are Republicans? This worried.
ThinkProgress has a good item with background on this, including Rove's interest in the census: "The Bush administration did all it could to politicize the Census and ensure that it fully represented Republican areas. In 2001, the Commerce Department, led by former 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Donald Evans, 'rescinded a regulation issued in October by the Clinton administration that had sought to insulate from political pressure any decision on whether to adjust census figures.'" —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
'I NEVER CONSIDERED MYSELF A MAVERICK'.... To say that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) built his most recent persona -- the latest in a series -- around the notion of being a "maverick" would be a dramatic understatement. The "m" word was practically a verbal tick for McCain -- he'd use it constantly, whether it made sense or not, similar to the way Rudy Giuliani would mutter "9/11" at random moments throughout his day. In 2008, McCain's television ads described him as "the original maverick." When McCain and Sarah Palin would routinely take different positions during their national campaign, aides insisted this was to be expected from "a couple of mavericks." A quick search of McCain's Senate website turns up several dozen references to the senator being a "maverick" -- in some cases, press releases, instead of quoting McCain by name, would simply note, "The Maverick said..." McCain's website for his Senate campaign does the same thing, using "McCain" and "Maverick" interchangeably, as if they were practically the same word. The point, of course, was to create a McCain brand, of sorts, characterizing the conservative senator as the kind of politician who doesn't mind bucking his unpopular party from time to time. That persona, however, no longer suits McCain's purposes. So, it's been scrapped.
I knew McCain was shameless. I knew he had few, if any, core beliefs. I knew he'd abandon any of his so-called principles at a moment's notice, and flip-flop on every imaginable area of public policy. But I never thought I'd actually see McCain say, "I never considered myself a maverick." It's as pathetic a political display as anything we've seen in quite a while. All of those political reporters who worshiped McCain circa 1999 should probably pause right about now, and appreciate the extent to which they fell for a con. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)
NOT EXACTLY A 'MAINSTREAM' FORCE.... One of the day's biggest stories among conservative bloggers is some new survey data that suggests the right-wing Tea Party "movement" is in line with the new American "mainstream." There's ample reason for skepticism about this. Indeed, the closer one looks at the data, the more it seems Andrew Malcolm and other reflexive partisans are pushing a bogus spin. There are actually two polls getting attention today. The first is from the Winston Group, a Republican firm, which published a survey that generated this write-up from The Hill.
At first blush, reading that "four in 10" Teabaggers are Dems or Independents makes it sound as if the unhinged, misguided movement has broad support. It doesn't. Even if we accept a Republican firm's results at face value, the Tea Party is dominated by Republicans and Republican-friendly independents (remember, thinking on Indys as a coherent, self-contained group is completely wrong). If an analysis is going to lump Tea Party-friendly Independents with one of the major parties, it makes far more sense to say 85% of movement members are Republicans or Independents. While about a third of the nation at large approves of the Republican Party, with the Tea Party crowd, GOP approval is a whopping 71%. That's not especially "mainstream." On the contrary, it sounds like a pretty conservative group of folks. And then there's the Gallup poll. Gallup goes ahead and gives the right the headline it wants to see: "Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics." But it's difficult to review Gallup's results and reach that conclusion. The pollster found that 28% of Americans identify themselves as part of the right-wing group. Greg Sargent took a closer look at that 28%.
Marc Ambinder summarized the findings this way: "Tea Partiers Are Conservative. Moving Along..." Andrew Malcolm characterized the data as "myth-busting." But Malcolm, a veteran of the Bush/Cheney White House, has it backwards -- the results reinforce exactly what most reasonable observers perceive about this so-called movement. We're talking about a group of overwhelmingly white, conservative, middle-class voters who tend to like Republicans an awful lot. A lot of labels come to mind when describing the Tea Party crowd -- confused, misled, easily manipulated -- but "mainstream" isn't one of them. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * American Crossroads, a 527 committee set up as a "shadow" RNC filled with prominent Republican strategists and former RNC officials, intends to spend $50 million to help Republican congressional candidates this year. * Former Rep. John Kasich, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Ohio this year, made over $600,000 from Lehman Brothers in 2008. * In California, a new LA Times/USC poll shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading a generic Republican candidate, 48% to 34%. As for the actual GOP candidates, former Rep. Tom Campbell (R) leads the Republican primary field with 29%. * On a related note, the same poll shows former eBay CEO Meg Whitman leading the Golden State's gubernatorial campaign, easily beating state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner in the Republican primary, and edging state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) in a general election match-up, 44% to 41%. * Sen. John Thune (R) will run for re-election this year in South Dakota with no Democratic opponent. * And in Alabama, the DCCC had high hopes that attorney Josh Segall would give Rep. Mike Rogers (R) a tough race in November, a year after the Democrat nearly knocked off Rogers in 2008. Though Segall had already raised over $400,000 for a rematch, late Friday, he announced he'll skip the race. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
STEELE PLAYS THE WRONG CARD.... Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele recently lectured Democrats about race. In December, the embarrassing party leader said he's "sick and tired of the left and Democrats in this country when they get in trouble and don't get their way and their backs are up against the wall on legislation or whatever it is their trying to do, they go to that card, they play that race card." It was noteworthy, then, when Steele, hoping to put last week's unpleasantness behind him, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "Good Morning America" that he's held to a higher and unfair standard because of his race. The White House is right to argue that the scandal-plagued RNC chair is on the wrong track.
And in the larger context, Adam Serwer's observation rings true:
I'd just add that, as a matter of public relations, Steele seems to have missed yet another opportunity. Last week was a disaster for the RNC -- in large part because Steele's RNC spent two grand in donor money at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex" -- and the chairman no doubt went on "Good Morning America" to help set things right. Instead, the big topic of the day in political circles is: Steele plays race card following sex scandals. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
WHAT HAPPENS IF ENSIGN IS INDICTED?.... We haven't seen a sitting senator indicted in a while. As Jon Ralston reported yesterday, that may soon change.
Ensign's controversy, for quite a while, looked like a simple sex scandal -- the "family-values" conservative was sleeping with one of his aides who happened to be married to another one of his aides. But as we've seen the matter unfold in recent months, there's now ample reason to believe the Republican senator may also include ethics violations, hush money, and official corruption. An ongoing FBI investigation appears to be heating up, and by some accounts, expanding. The likelihood of a criminal indictment is no longer far-fetched. And if the indictment comes, Ensign's scandal at least has the potential to shake up the political landscape a bit.
Something to keep an eye on. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
THE PROSPECT OF A HIGH COURT FILIBUSTER.... There are no vacancies on the Supreme Court as of now, but Justice John Paul Stevens has signaled his intention to step down sometime in the not-too-distant future. With this in mind, there was some discussion over the weekend about the kind of confirmation battle we can expect to see. Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the Senate's #2 Republican, told "Fox News Sunday" that a GOP filibuster remains a distinct possibility.
This isn't too surprising. Let's not forget that Kyl, literally just a few days after the 2008 presidential election, started talking about blocking Supreme Court nominees he expected not to like. Nevertheless, Kyl's remarks are interesting for a couple of reasons. First, his understated threat is a sign of the times -- a Republican Senate leader is speculating on national television about filibustering a nominee who hasn't been named, in response to a Supreme Court vacancy that doesn't exist. Second, as Amanda Terkel noted, Kyl used to reject the very idea of filibustering judicial nominees -- back when there was a Republican president. "It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate," Kyl insisted on "Meet the Press" five years ago this month. Indeed, Kyl was one of the conservative Republicans who supported the "nuclear option" in 2005. That, however, was then. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
STEELE STRUGGLES FOR SUPPORT.... Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele probably didn't have much in the way of fun last week. A series of humiliating controversies -- including one in which donor money was spent at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex" -- knocked him and his party on their heels, and drove RNC donors away. With renewed questions about Steele's competence circulating, the embarrassing RNC chair was a topic of conversation on the Sunday shows, and party leaders declined to offer Steele a vote of confidence.
For his part, Steele spoke to George Stephanopoulos for ABC's "Good Morning America," and the RNC leader said he would not step down from his post. Steele went on to say that race likely plays a factor in his on-the-job difficulties.
This has the potential to make matters worse. Steele has plenty of detractors in Republican circles, and if they believe Steele is accusing them of racially-motivated criticism, they're likely to push back aggressively. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
April 4, 2010
THE IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL PROJECTION.... Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), railing against progressive politics like any disciple of Ayn Rand novels would, gave a speech recently that condemned Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) for saying, "We are trying to increase the role of government on every front." Except, Barney Frank didn't say that. The progressive lawmaker was talking about bringing some accountability to reckless financial institutions that nearly collapsed the global economy. Frank actually said, "We are trying in every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area." The difference, obviously, matters a great deal. But Paul Ryan's use of a bogus quote nevertheless has a larger significance. Paul Krugman noted yesterday that Ryan and other far-right Republicans who believe that all Dems necessarily want to "increase the role of government on every front" are engaged in some fairly blatant projection.
I've long considered this one of the key observations of American politics, because it's fundamental to understanding how both sides of the political divide seek to advance their goals -- and the nature of the goals themselves. For the left, the goals relate to policy ends. We want to expand access to quality health care. We want to lower carbon emissions to combat global warming. We want to reform the lending process for student loans so more young people can afford to go to college. There are competing ways to get to where progressives want to go, but the focus is on the policy achievement. So, to Krugman's point, the liberal worldview is not about necessarily increasing the size of government or raising taxes; those mechanisms are only valuable insofar as they reach the desired end-point. Whether the government increases or shrinks in the process is largely irrelevant. For the right, it's backwards -- the ideological goal is the achievement. Jon Chait had a terrific piece on this several years ago.
So, when Paul Ryan uses a bogus quote from Barney Frank about allegedly wanting to "increase the role of government on every front," it's very easy for Ryan to accept the premise because he wants to decrease the role of government on every front -- not to achieve specific ends, but because decreasing the role of government on every front is the specific end. Those on the right want to cut taxes, because tax cuts are necessarily good. They want smaller government, because smaller government is necessarily good. They want to privatize public programs because privatization is necessarily good. As Krugman noted, conservatives tend not to understand that the left has no parallel ideological desires (wanting bigger government just for the sake of having bigger government). It's why they fell for the bogus Frank quote in the first place. The left starts with a policy goal (more people with access to medical care, more students with access to college, less pollution, more Wall Street safeguards) and crafts proposals to try to complete the task. The right starts with an ideological goal (smaller government, more privatization, lower taxes) and works backwards. —Steve Benen 12:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (70)
DOES KYL KNOW WHAT HIS CAUCUS IS UP TO?.... Effective tomorrow, 200,000 out-of-work Americans will see their unemployment benefits expire. Congress would have approved an extension, but Senate Republicans blocked a vote before lawmakers left for their spring recess. The Senate's #2 Republican this morning made it sound like there's Republican support for an extension, which under the circumstances, seems like an odd thing to say.
These are, to be sure, the right phrases. Kyl twice said "we will" in the context of helping the unemployed with extended benefits. But what does Kyl mean by "we," and for that matter, "will"? Senate Democrats had a proposal on the floor to help the unemployed. Senate Republicans blocked a vote, just as they did in March with Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ky.) infamous "blockade." Is Kyl not paying attention, or is he hoping the public isn't paying attention? —Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
BLASTING DEMS FOR WALKING TO WORK.... Two weeks ago, House Democratic leaders walked from a caucus meeting to Capitol Hill, en route to the final debate over health care reform. As the lawmakers approached the building, assorted right-wing activists chastised Dems, reportedly used racial and ethnic slurs, and in one instance, spat on an African-American lawmaker. Two weeks later, conservatives are still talking about the ugly scene -- and are still blaming Democrats for the far-right's thuggish behavior. Greg Sargent noted yesterday, "Conservative media keep pushing nutty, self-aggrandizing BS meme that Dems hatched an elaborate plot to incite Tea Partiers to racism and violence." It seems hard to believe -- aren't there other lines conservatives should be trying out right now? -- but this really has risen to the top of the list of right-wing talking points. There was Cal Thomas on Fox News:
And Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Fox News:
And Andrew Breitbart on his website:
And Mark Steyn in National Review yesterday:
Steyn went on to compare Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) to "a Holocaust survivor painting a swastika on his own door" to embarrass his neighbor. I'm trying to wrap my head around the argument here. Democrats heard racist rhetoric from some in the Tea Party crowd. Rather than denounce the racism, conservatives prefer to argue that African-American lawmakers are liars. In the next breath, those same conservatives insist that the racist slurs (that ostensibly didn't exist) should be blamed on Democrats themselves for inciting the right-wing crowd. So, we're to believe (a) unhinged activists didn't use bigoted language; and (b) if unhinged activists did use bigoted language, it's Democrats' fault because they walked to the Capitol. Best of all, two weeks later, this is the part of the health care debate conservatives are most anxious to talk about. How bizarre. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)
CASSELL'S CRASS CONFUSION.... Dr. Jack Cassell, an Orlando-area urologist and part-time Republican crank, probably couldn't have imagined what he was getting himself into. This week, Cassell's medical office posted a sign for patients and their families: "If you voted for Obama...seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years." The ethically-challenged physician told the Orlando Sentinel he wouldn't deny care to patients who support the president, but Casell wants those patients to feel unwelcome and seek medical treatment from doctors who don't care how they voted. Since the Sentinel's piece was published on Friday morning, news of the doctor who puts his partisanship ahead of his patients spread very quickly. Over the last 48 hours, I've seen reports on Cassell's bizarre antics on CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, the LA Times, and elsewhere. Even in hyper-partisan times, medical professionals aren't supposed to cross lines of professionalism like this, and the story seems to have struck a chord. But perhaps the most important coverage was an interview between Cassell and Alan Colmes on the radio Friday night. The host tried to get a better sense of why, exactly, Cassell hates the Affordable Care Act so much. The urologist specifically argued that officials, in light of the new law, are "cutting all supportive care, like nursing homes, ambulance services."
What a good question. Cassell struggled to explain himself, saying he'd seen some things "online," and adding that the information he needs to understand the law "should be available to me." Of course, the information is available to him, and has been for months. Cassell chose not to do his homework before driving patients away -- patients who, it turns out, may know a lot more than he does about the law he claims to hate. This is painfully common -- some of the loudest, angriest critics of the Affordable Care Act are also some of the least informed, most confused, embarrassingly ignorant observers anywhere. In this case, Cassell has become a national joke because he's repulsed by a health care reform plan that he fully admits he doesn't understand. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Post Script: For the record, Cassell's rhetoric about "cutting nursing homes" notwithstanding, the National Association of Home Care and Hospice praised the Democratic plan. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)
STEVENS SENDING SIGNALS.... Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has been fairly transparent about his intention to retire from the bench. Last fall, the high court's oldest member hired only a single law clerk -- as a rule, that's a pretty big hint -- and Stevens conceded to Jeff Toobin weeks ago that he will step down before the end of Obama's first term. This morning, both the New York Times and Washington Post publish interviews with the 89-year-old Ford appointee, and given justices' general reluctance to chat with major media outlets, it's not unreasonable to think Stevens' retirement announcement may be imminent.
When Stevens steps down, it will mark the end of an era: he is the last justice to have served in World War II, lived through Prohibition, and was around for the start of the Great Depression. In terms of the Supreme Court's stark ideological divisions, Stevens' departure would not likely change the makeup of the bench -- despite having been nominated by a Republican president, Stevens is one of the high court's most reliably liberal votes. President Obama, who Stevens praised in his interviews, would intend to replace Stevens with another progressive voice, keeping the center-left bloc with four votes (joining Ginsburg, Stevens, and Sotomayor). The White House is reportedly "bracing for a summertime confirmation battle," and some names of jurists likely to be considered have already become the subject of D.C. scuttlebutt. —Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
April 3, 2010
THEY'LL REJECT OUR HISTORY AND REPLACE IT WITH THEIR OWN.... Sometimes, a headline can tell us quite a bit: "Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives rewrite it."
It's not especially surprising, of course. Reading this, it's hard not to think of the Ron Suskind classic when a senior adviser to then-President George W. Bush dismissed those who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.... That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." If today's conservative Republicans reject reality, it stands to reason that they'll reject history, too. But it's nevertheless a reminder of why conversations with those immersed in a right-wing ideology tend to be rather frustrating, if not futile, experiences. In order for political discourse to have any meaning or value, there have to be certain agreed upon facts that serve as a foundation for the dialogue. But as the McClatchy piece notes, that foundation is no longer stable -- conservatives frequently choose to believe versions of events that aren't real, because the make-believe version makes them feel better. The result is an American history in which every era can be distorted to satisfy the far-right ego. Indeed, it continues to apply to more contemporary events -- tell the typical Republican that Ronald Reagan raised taxes in six of his eight years in the White House, and he/she will probably look at you as if you've lost your mind. That is, in fact, what happened, but the right chooses to reject this history, because they don't like it. (Tell these same Republicans that Barack Obama's health care plan is in line with what moderate Republicans have supported for years -- and that the individual mandate was actually a GOP idea -- and you'll get the same reaction, even though it's true.) For all the talk about getting reasonable people with different ideologies into a room to find common ground on a host of complex issues, it's worth remembering that for many political actors in 2010, there isn't even agreement on the basics. When dealing with a large group of influential conservatives who believe FDR created the Great Depression, Theodore Roosevelt was a socialist, and Joe McCarthy was a hero, what's there to talk about? —Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (71)
CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO LIE.... We talked the other day about one of the right's new favorite talking points about health care reform: the notion that the government will hire thousands of IRS agents to check up on Americans who may not want to buy coverage. It is, of course, a "wildly inaccurate claim," the latest in a series of demonstrable lies. But it's proven to be popular with the fact-challenged crowd. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has repeated it, as has Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) insists it's true, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested the threat of all of these new IRS agents "is a little scary." And that's the key word: scary. The RNC conceded recently that the party will rely on little more than "fear" to win, even if that means deliberately deceiving as many voters as possible. All the network needs is a way to get the lie from Republican imaginations to voters who don't know better. Enter Fox News, which just loves the bogus IRS claim. Reader B.G. sent me this email the other day, which I'm republishing with permission:
This may seem like an obvious point, but I think it's often overlooked. For many Americans, especially those over a certain age, there are certain assumptions about broadcast media. People who are accustomed to believing what they hear from television news aren't nearly skeptical enough about Fox News propaganda, because it's hard for them to appreciate the notion that an entire "news" network, right there on their cable dial, has no qualms about deliberately misleading its audience to further a partisan agenda. Folks like B.G.'s father hear the nice man on the television making a ridiculous claim, and the claim seems easy enough to believe. There's little reason for skepticism. After all, why would the nice man on the television lie? Aren't there rules against something like that? Fox News no doubt realizes this dynamic exists, and exploits it for all it's worth. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the devastating scandal surrounding the Vatican and the pope, which is causing ongoing humiliation for the Roman Catholic Church on a global scale. Managing to literally add insult to injury, the Vatican's preacher of the Pontifical Household compared criticism of the church and Pope Benedict XVI to persecution and "collective violence" against Jews.
The remarks offended Jews, victims of the church's sexual abuse, and pretty much all sensible people everywhere. The Vatican quickly distanced itself from Cantalamessa's Good Friday homily, and said he was speaking only for himself. In the larger context, however, the insult "came amid revelations of alleged abuse of children by priests across Europe and in the United States, and the accusation that Benedict, before he became pope, did not do enough to take action against suspect priests." There seems to be a growing effort to characterize the church as some kind of victim in this story, despite its role in covering up the sexual abuse of children. This week, for example, the Vatican lashed out at the New York Times for shining a light on the international scandal. Church officials could not, however, point to specific examples of the newspaper getting its facts wrong. The Vatican, as part of its unpersuasive defense, also insisted this week that the pope cannot be compelled to answer questions about the church's child-molestation cover-up because, as church attorneys said, the pope is a "head of state," and therefore has immunity. And in case you're wondering, there is no mechanism in place that could allow for papal impeachment. Also from the God Machine this week: * More twists and turns in the C Street scandal: "A group of Ohio ministers and an ethics watchdog group here have separately asked federal investigators to examine whether four House members and four Senators received what amounts to illegal gifts for paying $950 a month, including housekeeping, to stay at the C Street house." * There was a flap this week about Davenport, Iowa, dropping Good Friday from its municipal calendar, but it was much ado about nothing. * President Obama receives daily prayer devotionals delivered directly to his Blackberry. * And speaking of the president, Obama extended holiday wishes in his weekly address this morning: "[W]hile we worship in different ways, we also remember the shared spirit of humanity that inhabits us all - Jews and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, believers and nonbelievers alike." —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
IN DEFENSE OF GOVERNMENT.... President Obama hosted a town-hall event in North Carolina yesterday at a Charlotte factory where they develop advanced battery technology. The event was primarily devoted to talking about the economy, and it was well timed -- the president spoke shortly after the encouraging monthly job numbers were released. Towards the end of the Q&A;, an attendee asked Obama about health care reform and taxes, and the president proceeded to deliver an answer that lasted ... just over 17 minutes. This led to some mockery from the media -- for the record, I kind of liked the lengthy response, but I probably like in-depth discussions more than the typical political reporter -- and Obama, at the end of his soliloquy, conceded, "Boy, that was a long answer. I'm sorry." What I found more interesting, though, was the president's remarks in defense of government itself. He was talking about the need for an improved national electrical grid ("smart grid") and the role government can and must play in tending to infrastructure needs. Obama told his audience that work on the grid "is an investment that only government, working with the private sector, can help to make."
I'm always glad when the president does this. One of Obama's larger, thematic tasks is changing the way people perceive the role of collective action through their government. The right's response to his presidency is a hysterical attack on the very notion of government action, which makes it all the more important for the president to make statements like these. Americans need a reminder that when it comes to some key policy challenges, the only sensible solution is for the country to use the government as a tool to act in the public's interest, taking steps businesses won't take, and that individuals can't take on their own. In other words, more of this, please. —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
TORTURE BAN DOESN'T UNDERMINE SECURITY.... As far as a few too many conservatives are concerned, President Obama put us all at risk by prohibiting torture techniques leading far-right voices have grown to love. It must be frustrating for them, then, to see reality keep getting in the way.
Sometimes, it seems reality is conspiring to make the Cheneys, Palin, and Marc Thiessen appear foolish. —Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
THE 'BIKINI GRAPH'.... It's heartening to know my first-Friday-of-every-month jobs chart has been noticed. At Rachel Maddow's office, it's apparently been dubbed the "bikini chart." Pay particular attention to what Rachel had to say around the 3:25 mark: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy With any luck, the economy will continue to improve, and the chart will look less and less like a bikini bottom as the year progresses. —Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
April 2, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Scott Roeder sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder of Dr. George Tiller. * An encouraging, and surprising, turn of events: "After months of tense relations, China is showing new willingness to engage in talks with the United States, a diplomatic opening that may help the Obama administration achieve U.N. consensus on tightening sanctions on Iran." * An extremist group sent letters to more than 30 U.S. governors, from both parties, this week, demanding their resignations. The FBI "has issued an intelligence note warning police that an anti-government group's call to remove dozens of sitting governors may encourage others to act out violently." * On a related note, Zachary Roth did a nice job pulling together the "top ten flare-ups of anti-government violence -- or threats of violence -- in the Obama era." * The Obama administration is moving forward with a new security protocol for people flying to the United States. The overhauled system will be intelligence-based, and is intended to "raise flags about travelers whose names do not appear on no-fly watch lists, but whose travel patterns or personal traits create suspicions." * Major Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.), who oversaw training of Iraqi security forces in 2003 and 2004, supports getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." * Does the RNC consider alcohol "office supplies"? * New water guidelines from the EPA "could curtail some of the most contentious coal mining techniques used across Appalachia." * The DNC is selling T-shirts celebrating Vice President Biden's description of health care reform as a "BFD." The first shipment of the shirts, which go for $25, sold out entirely this week. * Some news outlets are still peddling debunked Republican myths from the early years of the Clinton presidency. Still. * Given universities' financial troubles, it's not at all encouraging to see so many college presidents give themselves raises. * Ta-Nehisi Coates sets Charles Lane straight. * He was probably trying to be sarcastic, but hearing Sean Hannity refer to Tea Party radicals as "Tim McVeigh wannabes" -- and then hearing them clap -- was disconcerting. * And on a related note, Rush Limbaugh told his minions today that the words "storefront," "factory," and "worker" are "Marxist-Leninist terms." I don't think he was kidding. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
THE RENEWED RELEVANCE OF 'HIGHWAY HYPOCRITES'.... In February, around the time of the first anniversary of the Recovery Act, there was a fair amount of talk about "highway hypocrites" -- congressional Republicans who voted against the stimulus, said the stimulus would fail, and said the stimulus has failed, but who nevertheless sought, received, and bragged about stimulus investments that they ostensibly opposed. The phenomenon has grown since, and has taken on a new-found relevance. The DCCC had this message yesterday:
There are only 177 House Republicans in Congress; when 128 of them try to claim credit for job-creation programs they opposed and fought to prevent, that's quite a bit of hypocrisy. Asked for an explanation, Republicans still rely on the usual spin, insisting that the money was going to be spent anyway, so they wanted to help their constituents. But, again, that doesn't change the hypocrisy. These same GOP officials said the stimulus is simply incapable of creating jobs and generating economic growth. But their letters to the administration prove that they actually believe recovery funds are capable of creating jobs and generating economic growth -- in their states and districts. It even leads Republicans to take credit for projects that wouldn't have existed if they'd had their way. But I can't help but wonder if the shameless hypocrisy is about to get even worse. After all, last month was the best for job creation we've seen in this country in three years. The stimulus prevented an economic collapse, and slowly got the country back on track. Finding an economist who endorses the Republican line -- the increasingly-ridiculous notion that the stimulus failed, and that the economy would have been better off without it -- is even harder than finding a legal scholar who thinks the constitutional case against health care reform has merit. And with the stimulus having rescued the economy, what's the Republican line going to be now? How can the party that created the fire, and then fought like hell to keep it burning, claim credibility over those who put it out? This is especially embarrassing in a historical context. Congressional Republicans said Reagan's tax hikes would destroy the economy, but they were wrong. Congressional Republicans said Clinton's tax hikes would destroy the economy, but they were wrong. Congressional Republicans said Bush's tax cuts would produce incredible prosperity, but they were wrong. And congressional Republicans said Obama's stimulus would be a disaster, but they were wrong. It's an uninterrupted track record of failure on the issue Americans care most about right now. With that in mind, seeing more than 70% of the entire Republican caucus claiming credit for policies they opposed, I can only assume that total will grow over the next few months. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
THE MUDDLED REPEAL MESSAGE, CONT'D.... Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) spoke at Vanderbilt University this week, and touched on right-wing demands that the Affordable Care Act be repealed in its entirety. "The fact is that's not going to happen, OK?" Corker said. Of course, for conservatives, the remark isn't OK. It prompted Corker to run to The Weekly Standard to explain himself.*
That Corker felt the need to scramble after saying something that's plainly true is itself interesting. He seems to have accidentally told the truth -- a definite no-no in Republican circles -- which necessitated a walk-back. But the larger problem for the GOP shows no signs of resolution. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was asked whether Republicans would be able to repeal the Affordable Care Act before 2013. "Probably not," he conceded. But simultaneously, the more unhinged factions of the Republican Party show no signs of flexibility. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has an op-ed in the far-right Washington Times today, and the headline reads, "100 percent repeal of Obamacare."
King's message was aimed at members of his own party, which hopes to avoid the "repeal trap," and which quietly keeps conceding that what King and his wild-eyed cohorts keep demanding is not feasible. By the way, Media Matters now has a running tally of prominent conservative and GOP voices who are either demanding a full repeal or are conceding that a full repeal isn't going to happen. Both contingents are getting pretty big, and have no use for what the other faction is saying. If you pass by the headquarters of the DNC, you can probably hear popcorn popping. * Correction: John McCormack informs me that Corker didn't run to The Standard, but rather, The Standard contacted Corker. Good to know. The larger point, of course, stands. —Steve Benen 2:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
ON THE FRINGES OF THE FRINGE.... I like to think I've kept up on the major arguments against health care reform, but Slate's Tim Noah (a Monthly alum) highlights what he considers to be the four "loopiest" allegations thrown around by unhinged critics. I have to admit, I hadn't heard about most of them. Some of the nuttier ideas fall into the tin-foil-hat category -- some conservatives have argued that there's a provision in the Affordable Care Act about implanting microchips in Americans -- but my personal favorite had to do with playground jungle-gyms. A few weeks ago, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was video-ambushed by someone demanding to know why the health care reform package gives "$7 billion to fund jungle gyms." When Franken questioned the premise of the question, the conservative noted that the provision in question is on page 1,184. True? Not so much.
So the claim that the new law spends "$7 billion to fund jungle gyms" is wrong about the $7 billion, and wrong about the jungle gyms. Something to keep in mind when your right-wing relatives demand an explanation. By the way, the person who insisted to Franken that this claim was legit? That was 26-year-old conservative Jason Mattera, who was recently hired as the new editor of Human Events, a strange, hard-right magazine. —Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
THE WRONG RESPONSE TO RACISM.... Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Sean Hannity that Americans shouldn't believe reports about racist attacks from right-wing Tea Party activists.
I continue to marvel at this garbage. Indeed, far-right voices have a far better rhetorical option available, but they refuse to consider it. In the aftermath of some painfully ugly racism and bigotry, the smart thing for right-wing members like Bachmann to say is that isolated incidents are not representative of the whole. Yes there was some racism, she could say, but Republicans and the Tea Party crowd denounce those efforts entirely. "We're not going to let a few bad apples spoil the Tea Party bunch," Bachmann could say. "Those racists don't speak for our movement." But, no. Instead the message, in effect, is, "Don't trust those black Democrats. They say they heard racism, but they're probably lying." This is just blisteringly stupid. For that matter, "there were so many cameras there," and at least one of them picked up on a white activist spitting on an African-American lawmaker. Funny, Sean Hannity hasn't found time to air it. What's more, many of the incidents occurred outside of cameras' view. That said, when Bachmann's buddies began hurling bigoted slurs at her Democratic colleagues, there were plenty of witnesses, many of them journalists who reported on them. What's more, awide variety of Democratic lawmakers, many of them African American, including Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) have received faxes with images of nooses on gallows. The faxes have been given to law enforcement officials. If Bachmann wants to see them, I'm sure that can be arranged. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
THE HEAD-KNOCKING STYLE OF GOVERNANCE.... It's fairly common to hear pundits and various political players suggest that reasonable solutions can be reached if only decision-makers get thrown in a room together. Magically, the theory goes, worthwhile agreements are reached when this happens. In his column today, for example, the NYT's David Brooks argues that a deficit-reduction commission is unnecessary. Why bother when we can just throw decision-makers into a room together?
Like Dylan Matthews, I find this unpersuasive. Indeed, every time I hear the larger argument, it's always unpersuasive. In June, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked how he'd lower health care costs. "[I]t's easy," he said. "Get the people in a room who have the most and the most direct impact on cost, and do the deal. Do the deal. It's not that complicated." In 2006, John McCain explained his solution for the war in Iraq: "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit.'" In 2008, McCain explained that we could resolve FISA-related controversies by having policymakers "sit down together and work this out." A month before the presidential election, McCain said he had a plan to address Social Security issues: "We've got to sit down together across the table." Digby once famously described this as the "head-knocking style of governance" -- complex problems can be resolved through force of will. Once the relevant players have a conversation, everything will just work out. How? It doesn't matter; it just will. But as Brooks should know, the policymaking process tends to be more complex than this. Decision-makers have competing goals and divergent ideologies. As Matthews put it, "Does Brooks really think the reason, say, Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can't agree on deficit reduction matters is reflective of the fact that they haven't sat down together and talk about these things enough? Is it possible that these things are intractable because there is serious disagreement about what the government's priorities ought to be?" I realize it's nice to think well-intentioned people can sit down in a room and resolve complex issues, but if policymakers could fix historic challenges by getting stuck in a room with one another, they would. For those of us above the age of 11 who try to take government seriously, it's just not that easy. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In Arizona, recent polls show Sen. John McCain (R) leading former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) in their Republican Senate primary, but by a variety of margins. A new Research 2000 poll shows the incumbent ahead by a pretty comfortable margin, 52% to 37%. * Rex Rammell (R), running for governor in Idaho this year, told ABC News this week that if right-wing militias want to "show a little force" in opposition to the U.S. government, "I don't have a problem with that." * In Ohio, the latest Rasmussen poll shows a very competitive gubernatorial race, with former Rep. John Kasich (R) leading incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D) by the slimmest of margins, 46% to 45%. Strickland had been trailing by far larger margins. * Craig Varoga, a longtime Democratic political operative, has formed a group intended to oppose far-right Tea Party candidates. It's called the Patriot Majority PAC. * In the GOP primary in Arkansas' 2nd congressional district, the Republican establishment is rallying behind former Karl Rove protege Tim Griffin. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), however, has thrown his support to Griffin's primary opponent, Scott Wallace. * And in Kansas City, a white supremacist running for the Senate can force radio stations to air his commercials, regardless of their racist and anti-Semitic content, because he has filed required papers to qualify as a write-in candidate. Legally, stations are required to broadcast the ads of "legally qualified candidates" if they have the money to pay for them. Said KMBZ program director Neil Larrimore in response to listener complaints, "Our hands are tied." —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
CENSUS JOBS COUNT.... With the economy adding 162,000 jobs in March, the best month in three years, Republicans are left to come up with a new reason Americans shouldn't believe their lying eyes. The new argument is that the job totals don't really count, because so many of the new jobs are part of census-related hiring.
A couple of things to remember here. First, the RNC's claim is wildly misleading. Based on the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau hired 48,000 workers in March. Is that "most" of 162,000? Of course not. Second, it's not uncommon to hear Republicans suggest census jobs aren't real jobs, in part because they're temporary. But this is a short-sighted way to look at this. Matt Yglesias had a good item on this earlier.
Exactly. Obviously, these aren't the kind of career opportunities that last, but it's not that much different from using stimulus money on an infrastructure project -- the government pays workers to complete an important task, and those workers are then able to spend on other good and services, which in turn helps the larger economy. In other words, census jobs count, too. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
CNN SURE KNOWS HOW TO PICK 'EM.... When it comes to the constitutionally-mandated national census, all Americans will receive a pretty basic form to fill out, and it's important that they do. But there's also something called the American Community Survey (ACS), which supplements the census with more detailed information on demographic, social, economic, and housing trends. Yesterday, right-wing blogger and CNN contributor Erick Erickson announced he would refuse to answer ACS questions if asked, regardless of legal obligations to cooperate with the Census Bureau. "I dare them to try and come throw me in jail," Erickson declared on a radio show. "I dare them to. Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They're not going on my property." Remember, CNN pays this man to offer on-air political analysis. Indeed, the network has boasted of Erickson's "exceptional knowledge" and his "important voice." Jon Stewart reflected on CNN's bizarre decision with a great segment last night.
THE LIMITS OF AN EXTREME IDEOLOGY, CONT'D.... Republicans in D.C. and Tennessee were "giddy" about recruiting Stephen Fincher to run against Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) in the midterms. Fincher, a 37-year-old farmer, never went to college, but he's a blue-eyed charmer with a knack for raising lots of money. He's also been the recipient of generous sums of money from the federal government.
While some right-wing activists see this as problematic, many Tea Party activists have pledged their support for Fincher's campaign. David Nance, the founder of the Gibson County Patriots, said, "I don't see the agricultural subsidy thing as an issue at all." No, of course not. Why would it be problematic for a right-wing candidate who rails against government spending and welfare to receive $200,000 in checks from the federal government in the form of agriculture subsidies? For the right-wing crowd, subsidies for 32 million Americans with no health insurance is outrageous, but subsidies for conservative farmers is not an issue "at all." It seems as if stories like these are surprisingly common. Tom Grimes is active with Tea Party politics because he wants the government to spend less and get rid of public programs, but he loves Social Security, and when he lost his job, one of his first steps was contacting his congressman about available programs that might give him access to government health care Diana Reimer, considered a "star" right-wing activist in her efforts against government programs, hates the Affordable Care Act, but she loves the socialized medicine that comes with Medicare. Mike Vanderboegh considers himself a hard-line libertarian, but his main income is taxpayer-financed disability checks sent to him every month by the federal government. And in Tennessee, Tea Party activists want leaders who'll take a stand against federal government spending, and are rallying behind a congressional candidate who gets $200,000 in checks from the federal government. —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
ORLANDO-AREA PHYSICIAN SNUBS OBAMA VOTERS.... First,
I'm not expert in medical ethics, but a practicing physician encouraging patients in need of care to go elsewhere based on their voting practices seems like anti-Obama hysteria gone horribly awry. Cassell has professional obligations that are supposed to supersede his bizarre Republican ideology. Cassell claims he doesn't specifically press patients on their voting behavior, but in addition to the sign on the door, he prints out Republican talking points, and makes them available in his waiting room. He also refers to U.S. leaders as "morons" and urges patients to vote against policymakers Cassell disapproves of. He won't deny care to patients, but Cassell explicitly tells the public that he doesn't want to treat patients who support the president. William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine, said Cassell is "pushing the limit" on what's ethically permitted by a practicing physician. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)
BREAKTHROUGH MONTH FOR U.S. JOB MARKET.... For a year, the most common Republican talking point on the economy has been a straightforward, four-word question: "Where are the jobs?" In light of the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released this morning, the GOP may need a new argument.
The jobs report is easily the best we've seen since the start of the Great Recession late 2007, and the strongest overall in three years. With revised numbers for recent months, March is now the third month to show positive job growth since the start of the economic downturn, but last month's totals far exceeded the modest totals from November 2009 and January 2010. By popular demand, I've revamped the homemade chart I run on the first Friday of every month, showing monthly job losses since the start of the Great Recession. Now, the image makes a distinction -- red columns point to monthly job totals under the Bush administration, while blue columns point to job totals under the Obama administration.
ENSIGN'S SEX/CORRUPTION SCANDAL WORSENS.... Everyone, even shameless right-wing hypocrites, deserve the presumption of innocence. That said, Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, facing an ongoing FBI investigation, sure does look guilty.
Two years ago, Ensign attended a breakfast meeting with top executives at P2SA, and a related company, BioDiesel. The Republican senator, desperate to find a job for his mistress's husband, urged the executives from both companies to hire Hampton as a lobbyist. At the same meeting, the executives said they were looking for money to build a new processing plant, and urged Ensign to reach out to a third company about arranging a financing agreement. Ensign's office denied last month that the senator had provided any assistance to P2SA. That now appears to be untrue -- the senator's office did as the executives asked and helped try to find a financing partnership for the company. At the same time, Ensign's team continued to press the companies to hire the senator's mistress's husband. One senior Ensign aide reportedly told BioDiesel officials, "If you want John Ensign to work with you, you have got to hire Doug Hampton." Let's not forget the larger context. Douglas and Cynthia Hampton couldn't work for Ensign anymore -- because, you know, the senator was sleeping with Cynthia -- so Ensign was apparently trying to help them make up the lost income. The allegations for months have been that Ensign leaned on corporate connections to hire Douglas as a lobbyist. Those allegations look more and more credible all the time. Also note, there are laws prohibiting aides from lobbying for a year after leaving the Hill, but Ensign and the aggrieved husband seemed prepared to simply ignore the rule. For that matter, the senator used his office to cater to the needs of those who hired -- or were even thinking about hiring -- his mistress's spouse. I'm well aware of the IOKIYAR rule, but I nevertheless have a hard time imagining how Ensign survives this scandal politically. Having sex with an aide, after running on a family-values platform, is merely humiliating. But the far-right Nevadan, as part of an apparent effort to clean up a personal scandal, seems to have broken a few laws -- and left a paper trail to prove it. I know political reporters tend to care about these scandals only when a Democrat is involved, but we're talking about a controversy featuring a sitting senator's adulterous affair, plus alleged ethics violations, hush money, and official corruption. An ongoing FBI investigation appears to be heating up, and by some accounts, expanding. Still waiting for that media frenzy to force Ensign to resign in disgrace. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
April 1, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * The White House's most significant achievement yet in addressing global warming: "The Obama administration finalized the first national rules curbing greenhouse gas emissions Thursday, mandating that the U.S. car and light-truck fleet reach an average fuel efficiency of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016." * New filings for unemployment dropped last week, "matching the lowest level since August 2008." The totals are still too high, though they're improving. * GM had its best month in years in March, and the whole industry seemed to get a real boost. * The Obama administration's new efforts to counter drug trafficking are off to a good start: "Opium seizures in Afghanistan soared 924 percent last year because of better cooperation between Afghan and international forces, the top U.S. drug enforcement official said Thursday." * Rhode Island experiences its worst flooding in 200 years. * D.C. will host a nuclear security summit later this month. There were some fears that Chinese President Hu Jintao wouldn't attend, but to officials' relief, he said this morning he'll be there. * One of the Hutaree members arrested over the weekend had 46 guns and 13,000 rounds of ammunition in his Indiana home. * The New York Times editorial board seems fairly impressed with the administration's plan on coastal drilling: "President Obama ... announced a decision to expand oil and gas exploration in selected areas of America's coastal waters that will satisfy neither extreme but is, on the whole, a careful and useful addition to the steps he has already taken to reduce the nation's energy dependence." * More questionable spending from the RNC? * Larry Sabato backs off his claim about liberals and war heroes. Good move. * Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) may need to brush up on his geology basics. * The College Guide blog has nothing but April Fools-related posts today. * National Review's symposium on black unemployment will feature six white panelists -- and no one else. * If the Tea Party crowd is going to wave right-wing signs for the cameras, they should probably proof-read them first. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
HOEKSTRA ACKNOWLEDGES 'DOMESTIC TERRORISM'.... Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke to Detroit Public Radio yesterday, and acknowledged a fact conservatives are generally inclined to deny. WDET's Craig Fahle brought up a variety of recent instances involving U.S. extremists, and it led to this exchange. (thanks to M.D. for the tip)
At first blush, this may not seem like much of a concession, but I'm actually quite pleased to hear it. For many on the right, an act of deadly, politically-motivated violence doesn't qualify for the "terrorism" label unless the perpetrator is (a) a non-American; (b) a Muslim; or (c) both. Indeed, in the case of the deranged Texas man who flew a plane into a building, not only were conservatives reluctant to label this terrorism, but prominent conservative voices joked about the incident, expressed sympathy for the suicide bomber, and in Scott Brown's case, suggested the terrorist's motivations reminded him of his own Senate campaign. Violent incidents from domestic extremists have been common enough of late that it's become difficult to keep track of them all. It's politically inconvenient for the right to label anti-government nuts as terrorists, which is why it was all the more heartening to hear Hoekstra acknowledge what is plainly true. Of course, thinking about all the recent incidents of domestic terrorism, it's hard not to think back to one year ago. It was last April when the Department of Homeland Security published reports on the threats of potential violence posed by radical extremists. As I recall, conservative Republicans were apoplectic about the reports -- which were, by the way, originally requested by the Bush administration -- and some GOP lawmakers called for Janet Napolitano's resignation. If these same Republicans who whined incessantly at the time wanted to apologize, I'm sure the administration would be gracious about it. —Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Last June, President Obama hosted a press conference, and was pressed on the timing of his various pronouncements. "I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle," he told Chuck Todd. "I'm not." It was a reminder that this White House has little use for cable's clock, despite its pervasive influence on public attitudes and the political discourse. We heard a bit more of the president's thoughts on this today, during an appearance in Maine. Obama noted that the pundits are now chattering about the fact that divisions over health care reform have not yet disappeared.
That's sound advice -- for all of the president's intended audiences. Update: I've added a clip of this, as posted by ThinkProgress. —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
DECORATED LIBERAL VETERANS.... Larry Sabato probably just thought he was extending a compliment to Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics and an oft-quoted pundit, noted today that Webb was not satisfied with the legislative process during the health care reform debate. Sabato added that Webb isn't a "liberal caricature."
Now, I realize that Twitter's 140-character limit can be constraining, and perhaps Sabato didn't intend to suggest liberals can't be decorated war heroes, but his observation rubs the wrong way precisely because of the outdated "caricatures" that linger. Have we ever met decorated liberal war heroes? You bet we have. There's John Kerry. And Daniel Inouye. And Max Cleland, Wes Clark, and Chuck Rangel. And the Fighting Dems in Congress, and VoteVets.org. The persistence of this myth -- that somehow there's an incompatibility between progressive politics and heroic military service -- has gone on too long. I still remember a David Broder column from three years ago when he said attendees to the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting don't "have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military." What was the smear of Democrats based on? Nothing but lazy assumptions. It's tiresome. Haven't we gotten past this notion by now? —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)
ONE OF THOSE WEEKS AT THE RNC.... It's been an unpleasant week at the Republican National Committee, and party staffers no doubt hoped they could ride out the recent embarrassments surrounding Voyeur West Hollywood, and move on to less salacious matters.
To be sure, it's an honest mistake that could have happened to anyone. At least, I assume it was a mistake -- if the party uses bondage clubs to impress donors, I suppose anything's possible. But what I find especially amusing about this is that the fundraising piece in question was made to look like a census form, as part of an RNC scheme to sucker their donors into opening the mailed appeal.
In other words, the Republican National Committee's deceitful fundraising tactic accidentally encouraged its donors to call "hot horny girls." It's a great example of sleaze being compounded by additional sleaze. For the record, the RNC's fake-census letters were so sordid, Congress changed federal law to make such fundraising letters illegal. And that was before lawmakers realized the RNC was inadvertently promoting a phone sex line. —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
THOSE IMAGINARY IRS AGENTS.... Not quite two weeks ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared on Fox News with a new warning for those concerned about health care reform:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) went a little further, saying there will be 16,500 new IRS agents, each of whom will be "armed." Boehner and Paul were blatantly and shamelessly lying. FactCheck.org looked into this and concluded that it's a "wildly inaccurate claim." The Affordable Care Act, the researchers concluded, "requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation."
How'd this nonsense get started? Apparently, some Republican staffers on the Hill concluded that it may "may" be necessary for the IRS to add "as many as 16,500" additional employees to enforce the law. The GOP staffers apparently made up the number, based on bizarre assumptions. From there, Boehner, Paul, and other assorted Republican voices on the Hill and on Fox News' payroll (that means you, Brian Kilmeade) began presenting this foolish claim -- and adding ridiculous details -- to Americans as if it were fact. Is it any wonder the public is confused about the policy when professional liars have been spreading garbage like this? —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
BRODER AT HIS MOST BRODERESQUE.... The Washington Post's David Broder, ostensibly the "dean" of the D.C. political media establishment, thinks he knows why Congress is so unpopular with the public in the wake of the debate over health care reform. Care to guess his explanation? If you said, "because Democrats and Republicans aren't being bipartisan enough for the Broderesque mainstream," you're not only correct, you've also probably read most of David Broder's other columns.
Sigh. I just don't know how a media professional, who watches political events from the front row for a living, can sincerely embrace such tired, predictable observations. For Broder, it seems every dynamic political conflict can always be stripped of its complexities and summarized the same way: if both parties would put aside their differences, everything would be fine. This has become the Broderesque cliche precisely because the columnist has been writing the same thing, over and over again, in column after column, for as long as anyone can remember. But as long as Broder keeps pushing the line, it's probably worth emphasizing why it's misguided. For example, Broder pointing to "independents" as a coherent, self-contained group is lazy and incorrect. What's more, on the larger point, Broder continues to dismiss as inconvenient the fact that the two major political parties have very different agendas and worldviews. They're supposed to disagree, and they do. Each party wants to take the country in significantly different directions, and while it's easy to say the parties should get along, put aside their differences, and work together, that's not how American politics works. Broder urges the parties to "overcome their parochial concerns and agree." That's a charming idea, to be sure, but it's advice devoid of substance. Which of the parties' concerns are "parochial"? What is it, exactly, that they should "agree" to do? Broder doesn't say. Which policy ideas have more merit? Which deserve public support? Should the governing majority pursue the platform they ran on, or should they make concessions? And if so, which concessions make sense? Broder doesn't say. That's not what Broder columns are for, I suppose. They're published, again and again, to tell Democrats and Republicans to stop fighting for what they believe in, and meet in some amorphous, undefined "middle." It's hard to take such suggestions seriously, and few do. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * With former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) targeting several key House districts represented by Democrats -- targeting, by the way, with actual crosshairs -- the Dems are starting to raise money off of Palin's efforts. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), for example, emailed supporters: "Help Send Sarah Palin a Message." * The Republican Senate primary in Arizona is getting increasingly contentious. Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth is claiming that Sen. John McCain is weak and inconsistent on immigration policy. A McCain spokesperson described Hayworth's criticism as "disgraceful" and "despicable." * There are a lot of candidates running for governor in both parties in Alabama this year, but the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Republicans leading in every possible match-up. * Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is running for re-election this year, but has signaled his intention to retire at the end of his second term. * In Kansas, SurveyUSA continues to show Rep. Jerry Moran (R) leading Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R) in their Republican Senate primary, 42% to 32%. * In an odd twist, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), a moderate Dem, is facing a primary challenger from the right. That's not usually how Democratic primaries work, which is why it'll probably be unsuccessful. * In the wake of Rep. Tim Holden's (D-Pa.) decision to vote with Republicans against health care reform, the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO will withhold its support for Holden in his primary campaign. * Former Tennessee House Majority Leader Kim McMillan (D) is ending her gubernatorial campaign, and will instead enter the mayoral race in Clarksville. * And in Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown (R) continues to suggest Rachel Maddow might run against him, despite all the reality to the contrary. This week, Rachel delivered a helpful reminder to the strange senator on the air: "Senator Brown, you need to stop lying." —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY TO WASTE.... When conservative state attorneys general file frivolous lawsuits challenging the constitutionality against the Affordable Care Act -- litigation that even conservative legal experts agree has no merit -- they're not just wasting time. They're also wasting taxpayer money at a time when states can hardly afford to throw money at pointless court challenges. Yesterday, Virginia's shockingly-conservative AG, Ken Cuccinelli, prepared a response to those concerned about squandering public funds.
See? No problem! Cuccinelli's office spent $350 on court paperwork, and lo and behold, everything from here on out is just free. Who's going to complain about a case that only costs the commonwealth $350? Perhaps those who know Cuccinelli is being ridiculous. As Rachel Maddow, who struggled to explain this without laughing, told viewers last night, "Wait a minute. The attorney general and his staff work for free? They're doing this one pro-bono -- on their own time, with their own office supplies, sitting in their cars in the parking lot or something? Not while they're at work, having their salaries and all their expenses paid for by the good taxpayers of the state of Virginia? Amazing. Absolutely amazing." Cuccinelli is fairly new on the job, and by all appearances, he's not very bright. So let's make this simple for him: when the state AG's office works on a case, that costs taxpayers money. It's incumbent on a good state AG, then, to work on cases with merit. When state AGs pursue foolish cases because they have an ideological ax to grind, that's a classic example of -- let's all say it together -- wasting taxpayer money. Indeed, Rachel talked to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker (D) last night about this -- right-wing lawmakers in Georgia now want to impeach Baker because he won't waste taxpayer money on a frivolous lawsuit -- and he explained the problem nicely. "It's impossible to have a lawsuit where there are no inherent costs," Baker said. "Every time you are pulling employees away from their appointed duties to file a lawsuit and to engage in this counter-activity, there's going to be cost. Lawyers don't work for free, not even lawyers who work in house. So I'm not aware of any way that a lawsuit can be filed, even if we do it in house, where it doesn't cost the taxpayer some money." —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
HUTAREE MILITIA MEMBER BELIEVED BOGUS CHAIN EMAIL.... Nine members of a Christian militia group were taken into federal custody this week, based on evidence that the group was poised to launch a deadly plot. One of the nine was apparently enraged by a bogus claim she received a right-wing chain email. (via Justin Elliott)
Not quite two weeks ago, the woman posted to Facebook, lamenting the fact that H.B. 1388 passed. She wrote, "I'm peeved,,, when people in this country is getting kicked out of there homes everyday and our government passes a bill to spend more then 20 billion dollars to bring Hamas here and supplies them with food and homes that just wrong." [grammatical errors in the original] Soon after, she added, "I'm so stressed I could KILL someone!!!!!!!" For the record, H.B. 1388 was a national service bill, expanding AmeriCorps. It included no money for Hamas. Now, Tina Stone was already part of a radical group long before she received this silly email with absurd claims. But it didn't help. It also leads me to wonder just how much better off our collective national intelligence would be if ridiculous right-wing chain emails didn't exist. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)
WHAT'S IN A NAME?.... Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's comments yesterday on cap-and-trade generated fair amount of attention, but I'm not sure if he actually made any news with his remarks.
Some interpreted this as a new shift in rhetoric, and possibly even policy. I don't think that's quite right. For months, there's been a shift away from the three-word phrase, "cap-and-trade." Nearly four months ago, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who's helping lead a tri-partisan group on finding a compromise energy/climate package, told reporters, "You remember the artist formerly known as Prince? This is the market-based system for punishing polluters previously known as 'cap and trade.'" The same week, the White House signaled its preference for characterizing the effort as "energy independence legislation." More recently, the New York Times reported, "[C]ap and trade remains very much a part of the debate on what legislation will look like when the closed-door negotiations are finished." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), working with Lieberman and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), reportedly told environmentalists last week that "cap-and-trade is dead," but Graham "remains committed to putting a price on carbon emissions. And the proposal he is working on ... is likely to utilize the cap-and-trade mechanism when it comes to the electric utility industry, and later to manufacturers." So, the phrase may not be "in the lexicon anymore," but that decision was made quite a while ago, and it's still very much in the policy mix. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
A NEW KIND OF MEDIA 'INTERVIEW'.... Josh Marshall noted last night, "It looks like Fox [News] has created the perfect interview show vehicle for Sarah Palin. An interview show based around her interviews with people she's never interviewed." I thought he might be kidding. He wasn't.
It's almost farcical. Fox News announced that it would air a show called "Real American Stories" tonight, hosted by former half-term governor Sarah Palin. Promotional work for the program seems to have been deliberately misleading -- "several accounts" of the show "reported that Ms. Palin herself would be talking to the guests in the show." A Fox News website, for example, said Palin "will kick off her new Fox News series with one of the most diverse guest lineups in memory.... The three very different guests will speak to Palin for her inaugural episode of 'American Stories ' on April 1st." Except, they didn't "speak to Palin" at all. Fox News is taking old interview footage, and just repackaging it. Sarah Palin's guest list is made up of people who've never met Sarah Palin. And at least two of those three guests aren't happy about it. LL Cool J said the network has "lifted an old interview" from 2008 and is "misrepresenting" his remarks. A spokesperson for Toby Keith said Fox News didn't even alert the country musician about Palin's show, or the fact that his previous remarks would be aired. Asked if Keith had ever spoken to the right-wing politician, his spokesperson said, "Absolutely not." Is anyone really supposed to take Fox News seriously as a professional outlet? For that matter, if Palin is going to host an interview special, would it have killed the confused conservative to actually ... I don't know ... conduct an interview or two? —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (77)
RELIGIOUS RIGHT GROUP URGES RNC DONOR BOYCOTT.... About a month ago, after the release of an RNC fundraising presentation filled with donor insults, offensive caricatures, and an admission that the party will rely on little more than "fear" to win, prominent evangelical advisor Mark DeMoss said he would no longer contribute to the Republican National Committee. Yesterday, the RNC lost another evangelical heavyweight, who's urging like-minded allies to cut off the party, too.
When the party covers a nearly $2,000 charge at "a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex," I guess there are consequences. "This latest incident is another indication to me the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people they are seeking financial support from," Perkins said. It's hard to know just how big an effect calls like these are going to have. And if donors are still contributing to Republican candidates and campaign committees directly, the practical result may be limited. But the RNC has already been struggling financially under Michael Steele's leadership. And as Jonathan Martin noted, "If social conservatives -- the core of the party base -- withhold contributions, the RNC's money problem could become far worse." —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
GOP SENATOR: REPEAL 'NOT GOING TO HAPPEN'.... The Republican message gets a little more muddled.
Corker's remarks come on the heels of Sen. Richard Burr's (R-N.C.) comments that he doesn't see a full repeal as a realistic option, either. "It may not be total repeal at the end of the day," Burr said in a radio interview. "It may be a series of fixes over the course of this bill getting enacted that allow us to change and possibly bend that cost curve down." This continues to be a real problem for Republicans, most of whom know they're not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but a few too many of whom want to maintain the fiction to exploit gullible right-wing donors and manipulate easily-confused GOP voters. But as we've seen repeatedly, Republicans are at their most effective when they're on the same rhetorical page. Right now, their message is a mess -- one large GOP contingent is promising to pursue a full repeal, even killing provisions that enjoy broad national support, while another large GOP contingent is arguing that the very idea is foolish. Republicans are going to have figure this out eventually. Keep in mind, when Corker asks, "The fact is that's not going to happen, OK?" the response from the Republicans' far-right base is, "No, it's not OK." The Club for Growth is still demanding a full repeal. Far-right blogs and talk radio are still demanding a full repeal. Newt Gingrich recently said on "Meet the Press" that "every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill." There's some logic to the thinking -- Republicans have spent the last year insisting that the Affordable Care Act will destroy the country. In March, several GOP leaders described the new law as "Armageddon." More than a few prominent Republican voices have said the new law will literally lead to the deaths of innocent Americans. With that in mind, when GOP senators suggest that some of Armageddon is probably fine, and that they're not going to work to undo a law that's the end of the world as we know it, the base is understandably unsatisfied. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
December 2010
November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
