Joshua Green

Whether or not it's fair to blame Jared Lee Loughner's shooting rampage against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on overheated political rhetoric and violent imagery, the episode will probably mark a turning point in how the media cover politics. Members of the mainstream media are often not comfortable making judgments about whether such language is appropriate, or even dangerous, and therefore avoid the subject--until something like the Giffords shooting occurs, at which point they have a handy reference on which to pin stories. Articles that by their very nature must be speculative--does angry rhetoric lead to violence?--can safely be cast as "news," and reporters feel much more comfortable writing them.

Since the right wing, and especially the Tea Party, have been the epicenter of political anger, they can expect much tougher coverage--even though Loughner had no apparent connection to the Tea Party and had a reading list (Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf) as far to the left as other of his positions (gold standard, hatred of government) were to the right. And of course it's pointless to try and read too much into a lunatic's politics, anyway. It will be interesting to see how broadly the media polices questionable political speech going forward--will it be limited to gun sites and threats about "Second Amendment remedies"? Or will it also include the right-wing charge that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim?

Whatever the answer, the Giffords shooting seems certain to make the Tea Party path to the presidency more difficult. Until Saturday, it seemed like a good bet that GOP primary voters were going to behave much like they did in the 2010 primaries, punishing moderates and rewarding candidates who made the angriest denunciations of the president, the government, Nancy Pelosi, etc. That's one reason why Newt Gingrich refashioned himself as a Tea Partier and started ranting about Obama's "Kenyan colonial mindset." It's why the whole GOP field was rightfully terrified of Sarah Palin. But the political strategy of going to ever greater extremes in one's use of martial and apocalyptic language seems like the thing that's sure to change now--at least for a while. That could substantially alter the path to the Republican presidential nomination, the jockeying for which is already underway. And sure enough, Palin's InTrade odds of winning the nomination dropped right after the shooting.

Awful news from Tuscson, Arizona, where Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was just shot at point-blank range, along with at least six of her staffers, at a town hall event. Given the lack of details, one shouldn't jump to any conclusions, but this is exactly the sort of tragedy that so many people have privately (and some openly) been worrying about, as anger has increasingly suffused our national politics. I could be mistaken, but I believe Rep. Giffords was among those whose offices were vandalized during last fall's campaign. Few details yet on Gifffords's condition, that of her staff, the shooter or a possible motive. Here's hoping that this turns out not to be a politically motivated event, and that this terrible news doesn't get any worse.

Update: More details at National Journal and from The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta.

Later Update: Truly sad: NPR reports that Rep. Giffords has died (Update: Reuters is reporting that she's alive). Condolences to her family and those of the six staffer also shot. I believe she is the first member congress to be assassinated since Leo Ryan, the Democratic congressman from California who died in the Jonestown Massacre in 1978.

Later Update: According to this eyewitness report, the gunman was tackled by a member of Giffords's staff.

Over the years, I've had various contacts with Gene Sperling, who was introduced by President Obama today as the new director of the National Economic Council, replacing Larry Summers. I don't know him well. But the sudden "controversy" surrounding Sperling--the charge that he is in thrall to Wall Street because Goldman Sachs paid him to run an anti-poverty program--surprised me, since anyone who knows him at all, or has been spun by him, or has read his book or magazine writing, would pretty quickly conclude that he is the furthest thing from a Wall Street lackey; he is, in fact, an utter policy wonk and creature of Washington; and is eminently suited to the position not least because he held it under the last Democratic president.

The new Republican era in Washington has only just gotten underway and already there's been a big screw-up: two GOP House members didn't show up for the swearing in ceremony, but went ahead and voted anyway. Guess what? You're not allowed to do that. Now, everything the House accomplished yesterday is in jeopardy. It will not shock veteran observers of Washington to learn that one of the offending members was Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas. Because, you see, Sessions is...well, there's just no way of putting this gently: Sessions is widely regarded as one of the dimmer bulbs on the Christmas tree. And this episode will only reinforce that view, a view expounded by the American Prospect in a piece last fall: 

   What they say about Pete Sessions is that he's a hard worker. It took him three tries to get into Congress, but get elected he did in 1996. Then it took him two attempts to win the chairmanship of the National Republican Congressional Committee, but maybe that worked out all right; when he missed his chance in 2008, his party was shellacked at the polls. Now Sessions is NRCC chair, the House Republicans' top political operative at a time when his party is poised to take back dozens of seats and likely a majority in the House.

   "You think of a party committee chair as a lead tactician who knows where all the bodies are buried and where all the races are," a veteran political reporter observes. "That's not what you get from Sessions."

   It's true: They don't say Pete Sessions is bright.

The other day, I posted an interview with an outspoken Navy friend and defender of Capt. Owen P. Honors, the Navy captain who was relieved of his command after lewd videotapes surfaced that he'd made and broadcast to the sailors under his command aboard the USS Enterprise. Gay and lesbian groups, including the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, were particularly critical of Capt. Honors because the videos made light of gays and lesbians. I've gotten a number of emails from former sailors, some defending him, others condemning him. I wanted to share this note from a gay sailor who served under Honors aboard the USS Enterprise and wrote in to defend his former captain. (He provided his discharge certificate verifying that he'd served aboard the Enterprise). It's a viewpoint I haven't seen elsewhere and thus is worth reading and thinking about. His letter after the jump:

More »

There's been a lot of speculation over the last fews days that the Koch brothers--the secretive billionaires who are big funders of conservative causes--were behind the failed attempt to smear New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, who wrote an unflattering and much-talked-about profile of the brothers last summer. As it turned out, Mayer did nothing wrong, and so far nothing has linked the Koch family to this episode. But that doesn't mean that Koch Industries isn't displeased about its sudden and unwanted political prominence. And it clearly is going after other critics, including the anonymous hoaxsters who created a dummy website for Koch Industries (www.koch-inc.com) and sent out fake press releases claiming that the notoriously anti-environment company was going green. That didn't go over so well at Koch headquarters. Yesterday, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune, Koch Industries sued the web-hosting company in order to obtain the names behind the bogus site.

To coincide with the new Congress, I profiled Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell for the new issue of the Atlantic that's just out. I hope you'll read the piece, and also support the magazine by subscribing, if you don't already. We depend on print subscriptions, and it's still the best way to read long, serious articles. My sincere thanks in advance.

Earlier today, I was reading about the Navy's lewd videotape scandal when my phone rang. Total serendipity--it was Pete Clark! Longtime readers of this blog will recall that Pete was the profane sailor who'd served under Eric Massa and made a memorable appearance in the item I wrote when Massa tickled and groped his way out of Congress last year ("Eric Massa's Navy Files"). Pete's the guy who introduced "snorkeling" into the political lexicon. "Meat-gazing," too. Pete is to profanity what Mozart is to music. You have to marvel.

More »

I don't think I've ever seen an utterly speculative piece labor as hard as this one does to appear otherwise--but it's still a bizarre and fun read, at least if you're into zany theories about Karl Rove's pernicious influence on Sweden and the Wikileaks probe. 

Mitch McConnell is a master manipulator and strategist—the unheralded architect of the Republican resurgence. Now that his relentless tactics have made his party victorious, he is poised to take down the president and win the Senate majority he covets—if he can fend off the Tea Party and keep his own caucus together.

Last week, Ben Smith at Politico published a long (for Politico) and terrific piece on Richard Ben Cramer, the veteran journalist and author of the seminal 1992 campaign book, "What it Takes." The book is an unparalleled look at the modern political campaign and what it does to presidential hopefuls. Among a certain ilk--chiefly 30-something political reporters like Ben and me--Cramer is revered as a master reporter and writer, mainly on the strength of this book. One of the surprises in Ben's piece, at least for me, was discovering that Cramer seems to be unaware of this--he's something of a recluse. Ezra Klein, political journalist and RBC admirer of a slightly younger vintage, has had the inspired idea of declaring today "Richard Ben Cramer Appreciation Day." So let me add my wholehearted support.

It's not like me to brag, but I just thought everyone should know that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer named Joshua Green the "Man of the Century." You can't top that. I'm also a really good wrestler.

(h/t Google Alert)

Rich Iott has finally won something! Nominated for a Golden Duke Award (TPM's year-end Hall-of-Shame honors for politicians) in the category of "Unrefudiated Champion of Tea Party Wackiness," Iott did not win over the judges--Carl Paladino took the trophy. But Iott did win, overwhelmingly, the votes of TPM readers, many of whom are presumably also readers of this blog. So give yourself a pat on the back, folks! Clearly, TPM's panel of judges was a bunch of coastal elitist snobs who hate the Constitution and ignored the will of the people. But that's okay. As Iott himself would point out, a moral victory is better than no victory at all--and even worth reenacting on the weekends.

I enjoy Jon Stewart as much as the next guy, but suggesting, as today's New York Times does--and in a manner that leaves no doubt about its view--that the Daily Show anchor may be "the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow" because he spoke up for the 9/11 bill is just silly. Even the most wild-eyed lefty would have to pause before equating today's obstructionist Republicans with Joe McCarthy. And as commendable as it was for Stewart to speak up on behalf of the 9/11 bill, most commentators exaggerate how dire the bill's prospects were (Chuck Schumer would have demagogued it to passage with or without the Daily Show, I'd have bet money on it) in order to write yet another round of stories sanctifying Jon Stewart.

P.S. How cheap is it that the Times phrases the first two sentences of their story as questions? It's almost as if the paper was desperate to create the impression that Many Serious People were furiously debating the Murrow Question at salons and dinner parties everywhere--but couldn't quite bring themselves to make it a declarative because it isn't true.

For the record, the number of filibusters mounted in the session of Congress that concluded last night: 91. For comparison: the entire 19th century saw fewer than two dozen filibusters. During Eisenhower's presidency there were two. 

From the foot-fetish site Xat.com/feetfreaks (Click to enlarge): 

If you thought your favorite Nazi re-enactor had surrendered after his brutal 19-point drubbing in the November election, I have news for you: Rich Iott is running again! Well, sort of. He's up for a prestigious "Golden Duke" Award over at Talking Points Memo, in the category of "Unrefudiated Champion of Tea Party Wackiness." I'm gonna be honest--this race isn't going to be any easier for him. Iott is up against some stiff competition: Carl Paladino, Sharron Angle, Michelle Bachmann. He needs your help. So for all those who took the time to leave a comment, share a joke, or just email me to say "WTF?!" I am calling on you to show your support for Rich by casting your vote here. Iott Über Alles!

One of the big surprises since last month's election is that President Obama has fared much better than anyone would expect.

Obama himself called the results a ''shellacking,'' and they were widely interpreted as a resounding rejection of his policies. Prospects for the lame-duck session of Congress appeared even grimmer than the contentious period just before the election. But it hasn't turned out that way. Instead of packing up and leaving town for the holidays, members of Congress have passed a flurry of bipartisan legislation and even extended the session in order to pass more.

It isn't quite a Christmas Miracle. But as Congress goes, it's not too far off.

More »

New Jersey governor Chris Christie is starting to resemble Sarah Palin. No, not physically! Definitely not physically. Demographically. Since his election last year, Christie has unexpectedly emerged as a conservative folk hero and dark horse presidential candidate. He likes putting people in their place and uploading video of these encounters to YouTube. But as Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday, this sort of bullying behavior doesn't wear well over time. And sure enough, two new polls out today show that Christie's overall approval rating is slipping. But what's really happening, if you look closely at the numbers, is that Christie is becoming more polarizing. Like Palin, people either love him or they hate him. Also like Palin, many of his supporters doubt that he'd make a good president. Only 50 percent of New Jersey Republicans say he belongs in the White House.