 |
 |
   California is not just deciding whether pot should be legal. Its determining the shape of a major new American industry.
 America's most celebrated presidential wordsmith on speeches real and imagined.
 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?
|
   |
|
|
October 31, 2010
THIS ALMOST CERTAINLY ISN'T A HEAD-FAKE.... Jacob Weisberg posted a Slate item yesterday making the case that the congressional Republican leadership, after the elections, "will feint right while legislating closer to the center." Seriously. Weisberg relies on history to point to a credible pattern -- Republican leaders are great at "the right fake," but don't follow through. Reagan, for example, raised taxes, expanded the size of government, largely ignored the legislative priorities of the religious right, and compromised all the time with his rivals, but conservatives loved him anyway. As Weisberg sees it, we'll see this model again. Republican leaders will realize "they're being handed a gift, not a mandate." These same leaders, Weisberg argues, "don't think working with Democrats is evil. On the big picture tax and budget issues, they plan compromise with President Obama." In all sincerity, I'd love to think Weisberg's right, but I have no idea where his confidence comes from. Nearly all evidence points in the exact opposite direction -- the Republicans' Senate leader insisted just last week that his top priority is destroying President Obama, and similarly, the Republicans' House leader boldly proclaimed, "This is not a time for compromise." The number of GOP candidates talking about shutting down the government next year is pretty large. This does not sound like a party that "plans to compromise" with President Obama. Extremism, obstructionism, and antagonism will very likely push the GOP into the majority, and expecting Republican leaders to suddenly drop all of this once they're in a position of power is a fantasy. It is, to be sure, a pleasant fantasy, and one that would benefit the country, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Why? Because as Dana Milbank explains today, the modern Republican Party "is sorely in need of grown-ups."
In Weisberg's model, GOP leaders are strong, pragmatic, and responsible. In Milbank's model, those same leaders are weak, reckless, and easily cowed by radicals. Anyone watching D.C. in recent years shouldn't have any trouble concluding which model has more merit. Just a few months ago, the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, not exactly a raging leftist, said John Boehner and his leadership team "are becoming the Bart Simpsons of Congress, gleeful at smarmy and adolescent tactics and unable and unwilling to get serious." It's a party that's demonstrated no interest in substance, no interest in cooperation, and no interest in resisting the unhinged demands of Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck. Unless some well-hidden Republican adults suddenly emerge in the new year, Weisberg's predictions are literally impossible to believe. —Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)
THAT STUBBORN GAP.... The top-line results in the new Washington Post/ABC News poll are about what we'd expect given the prevailing political winds -- Republicans are well positioned to make huge gains on Election Day. But the gap between all Americans and those Americans likely to vote continues to be one of the year's most important trends. Among registered voters... * On the generic ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by five points (49% to 44%). * On which party would do better coping with the nation's problems over the next few years, Democrats lead Republicans by five points (45% to 40%). * On which party is more trustworthy on the economy, Democrats lead Republicans by five points (47% to 42%). * On which party better represents your own personal values, Democrats lead Republicans by six points (48% to 42%). Among likely voters... * On the generic ballot, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (49% to 45%). * On which party would do better coping with the nation's problems over the next few years, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (45% to 41%). * On which party is more trustworthy on the economy, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (47% to 43%). * On which party better represents your own personal values, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (48% to 44%). This really isn't complicated. If it were up to the larger population of registered voters, Dems would be poised to do fairly well on Tuesday. But at this point, it's Republicans who plan to show up on Election Day. —Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
REPUBLICANS BAIL ON MILLER IN ALASKA?.... At this point, there are exactly zero U.S. Senate seats currently held by a Republican expected to flip from "red" to "blue." There were several that looked promising for Democrats earlier in the year -- Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, Louisiana, North Carolina, maybe even Florida -- but none is still considered in play. That said, Alaska remains a bit of a mystery. Polling a three-way contest in which the incumbent and ostensible frontrunner isn't on the ballot -- Lisa Murkowski is instead running as a write-in candidate -- is inherently tricky. Recent polls show Murkowski surging as voters sour on extremist GOP nominee Joe Miller, but whether these results come to pass remains to be seen. Oddly enough, just yesterday, Miller's highest-profile backer -- Alaska's former half-term governor -- referred to him as a "lost cause," though Palin seems to have meant it as some kind of compliment. ABC's Jonathan Karl reports this morning that the Republican establishment is coming to see Miller the same way, though GOP officials don't mean it as a positive.
Note, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been forced to go on the air in Alaska, after expecting to save its money for other races. If the Republicans' priority were to elect the Republican nominee, the NRSC's ad would be going after Murkowski with a vengeance, since she's apparently in the lead. It's not -- the spot attacks McAdams, who Republicans obviously now consider a threat, and doesn't mention Murkowski at all. In the meantime, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has also taken an interest in the race, and has a new ad going after Murkowski. A few months ago, Alaska's Senate race was barely an afterthought. Now, it's anyone's guess who'll win. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
BRODER EYES TEHRAN.... David Broder notes in his column today that President Obama's political fortunes will largely depend on the state of the economy over the next two years. That seems like a more than reasonable assumption. Broder adds in the same column that President Obama's ability to shape the business cycle is severely limited, and that it "cannot be rushed and almost resists political command." This is less persuasive -- government stimulus can and does have a positive effect on demand -- but the columnist's point is not without some merit. It's Broder's conclusion that left me amazed. He noted, for example, that the Great Depression was finally overcome in large part by the largest economic stimulus in history: World War II. And it's "here," Broder argues, "where Obama is likely to prevail."
Just to clarify, this was published by David Broder, not Bill Kristol. This Halloween, Broder decided to dress up like a neocon, but neglected to mention the costume to his readers. I'm not sure what's more bizarre -- the fact that Broder presents a war with Iran as some sort of inevitability, or the assertion, based on nothing, that "accelerating preparations for war" with Iran will necessarily "improve" the economy. By that reasoning, shouldn't the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have also boosted the economy? The evidence to bolster such a notion is scarce. But if we take the reasoning a little further, Broder seems to be implicitly arguing that spending boosts the economy. It prompted Dean Baker to note this morning, "If spending on war can provide jobs and lift the economy then so can spending on roads, weatherizing homes, or educating our kids. Yes, that's right, all the forms of stimulus spending that Broder derided so much because they add to the deficit will increase GDP and generate jobs just like the war that Broder is advocating (which will also add to the deficit). So, we have two routes to prosperity. We can either build up our physical infrastructure and improve the skills and education of our workers or we can go kill Iranians. Broder has made it clear where he stands." Here's hoping the White House has the good sense not to stand with him. —Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
ABC FEELS THE HEAT AFTER BIZARRE BREITBART INVITATION.... Even for those of us who expect very little from major media outlets, the news late on Friday was depressing. ABC News had invited right-wing propagandist Andrew Breitbart to be part of the network's election-night team, and when asked about the decision, the network said the dishonest hatchet-man "will be one of many voices on our air." The decision immediately became a point of embarrassment for ABC News, and even people in the network's own newsroom were troubled by the announcement. By mid-day yesterday, the network was clarifying its decision, and ABC News Digital's executive producer Andrew Morse issued a statement:
Or, to summarize, Breitbart is just going to be on ABC's website, so stop yelling. What's interesting about this is not just the defensive tone -- I can only assume ABC received quite a few phone calls yesterday -- but also the ways in which it seems different from what those involved were saying the day before. On Friday, ABC said Breitbart "will be ... on our air." Breitbart himself boasted about being "featured" in ABC's "election night coverage," bringing "live" analysis. Nearly 24 hours later, however, ABC News wants us to know Breitbart will be "participating in an online-only discussion." I'm not in a position to say for sure whether this was ABC's plan all along, or if the network switched gears in the face of criticism. But I am glad the criticism was loud enough for ABC to hear it and respond. I'd just add one nagging detail: online broadcasts count. Breitbart is a far-right activist with a history of deceiving the public, and credible news outlets with professional standards should want nothing to do with him. I'm glad he won't be part of ABC's on-air coverage, but what ABC News features on its website matters, and can reflect well or poorly on the news team itself. In the 21st century, "it's only online" is no longer an excuse. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
SERVING UP A HOT CUP OF SANITY.... Towards the very end of yesterday's "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" on the D.C. Mall, Jon Stewart thanked the massive crowd for showing up, though he acknowledged "none of us are quite sure why" they were there. It was one of the oddities of the entire event, and arguably the only thing the Stewart/Colbert rally had in common with the Tea Partiers' and Glen Beck gatherings in D.C. -- it wasn't altogether clear what the point was, exactly. But that's not to say it wasn't worthwhile. I didn't get a chance to watch all of yesterday's rally, but from what I could tell, the Stewart/Colbert event had very little to do with politics, literally nothing to do with the elections (none of the speakers even mentioned voting), and everything to do with the sense that the basics of our civil discourse are badly off track. Indeed, when Stewart talked -- not just yesterday, but in the weeks leading up to the event -- about restoring "sanity," I'm fairly sure he wasn't talking about policy at any level. I just get the sense he's driven a little crazy by what's shown on broadcast media, and wants Americans to be able to talk to each other again. The host had a closing statement of sorts, speaking at the very end for about 12 minutes, and if you haven't seen it, it's worth watching -- not just for the humor or the poignancy, but because it helped summarize the point of the gathering. Stewart didn't seem especially disappointed with partisans, ideologues, or activists; he reserved his discontent for the "tool" we're supposed to rely on for "delineating" between sanity and insanity -- i.e., the American media -- which Stewart believes "broke." The 24-hour news media, Stewart said, "did not cause our problems. But its existence makes solving them that much harder.... If we amplify everything, we hear nothing. The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything, we eventually get sicker." I don't know Stewart personally, so I'm not going to pretend to know what motivates him. But watching him yesterday, I kept thinking about his appearance on CNN's "Crossfire" several years ago, when he told the hosts their show is "hurting America." The program soon after disappeared from the CNN lineup, but I get the sense Stewart believes the qualities that made "Crossfire" horrible have spread throughout American media, making "sanity" harder to come by. And if that is what he's thinking, I happen to believe Stewart is right. The Washington Monthly had a correspondent on hand for the event, and I'll publish his piece a little later. But in the meantime, I'll note that sanity is not without supporters, though Tuesday's election results are likely to suggest otherwise. CBS News did an analysis of the crowd and estimated that 215,000 people were on hand. The network relied on the same company to estimate the crowd size at Glenn Beck's event in August, and found 87,000 people. If, in America, sanity can continue to outnumber insanity by better than two-to-one, our future might not be so bleak after all. —Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
October 30, 2010
HOW BAD WOULD IT BE?.... We'll know soon enough what the midterm elections have in store for us, but it's interesting to see how political observers prepare for the likely outcome. Given the expected rancor and gridlock, it's not unreasonable to wonder just how bad things might get in 2011 and 2012. For some, there's no reason to be too worried. Over the last couple of decades, we've seen the White House change party hands more than once, and the same goes for fleeting congressional majorities. We've been pushed to the brink, and some constitutional crises have popped up, but we've generally weathered some unpleasant storms. For much of the '90s, we even enjoyed peace and prosperity. For others, the avoidable future poses a more a serious danger. Paul Krugman, expecting a GOP majority, noted yesterday that "this is going to be terrible." Worse, the Nobel laureate predicted that "future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness."
I'd feel slightly less horrified if Krugman didn't have such a good track record. What's more, his dire warning doesn't even touch on the likelihood of a government shutdown, the possibility of default if the GOP blocks a debt extension, the partisan witch-hunts, and the mind-numbing fight to keep the progress we've already made. Of course, there's still a little more time before the bulk of voters head to the polls, and who knows, maybe the "Rally for Sanity" will give a boost to voices of reason. More on that later. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)
'IT COMES DOWN TO A SIMPLE CHOICE'.... I've been fascinated lately by leading Republicans who've gone out of their way to argue that they have no intention of compromising with anyone in the coming years, regardless of merit or popular will. As it turns out, the White House seemed to find it pretty interesting, too. In President Obama's weekly address this morning, the president emphasized the importance of policymakers working together, regardless of the election results, to solve problems. "Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, we need to come together to help put people who are still looking for jobs back to work," Obama noted." And there are some practical steps we can take right away to promote growth and encourage businesses to hire and expand. These are steps we all should be able to agree on -- not Democratic or Republican ideas, but proposals that have traditionally been supported by both parties." I think phrases like "traditionally been" are used as a reminder to note how extreme the current crop of Republicans is, even by Republican standards. But the president also noted how "troubling" it was to hear "the top two Republicans in Congress" foreswear good-faith negotiations: "The Republican leader of the House actually said that 'this is not the time for compromise.' And the Republican leader of the Senate said his main goal after this election is simply to win the next one. "I know that we're in the final days of a campaign. So it's not surprising that we're seeing this heated rhetoric. That's politics. But when the ballots are cast and the voting is done, we need to put this kind of partisanship aside -- win, lose, or draw. "In the end, it comes down to a simple choice. We can spend the next two years arguing with one another, trapped in stale debates, mired in gridlock, unable to make progress in solving the serious problems facing our country. We can stand still while our competitors -- like China and others around the world -- try to pass us by, making the critical decisions that will allow them to gain an edge in new industries. "Or we can do what the American people are demanding that we do. We can move forward. We can promote new jobs and businesses by harnessing the talents and ingenuity of our people. We can take the necessary steps to help the next generation -- instead of just worrying about the next election. We can live up to an allegiance far stronger than our membership in any political party. And that's the allegiance we hold to our country." If you listen closely outside the RNC, you can probably hear staffers laughing at the very idea. —Steve Benen 11:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
A UNIQUE ANGLE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.... There was a classic "Saturday Night Live" sketch way back in 1988, with a debate between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. Bush was asked about rampant homelessness and poverty, and delivered a rambling, incoherent response. Dukakis, played by Jon Lovitz, said in his rebuttal, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." I can only assume Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a very similar thought just about every day. This video shows a segment of a news broadcast from Las Vegas' CBS affiliate, which extremist candidate Sharron Angle has refused to speak to at any point during the campaign. A reporter from the station met up with the Republican nominee at the airport, in the hopes of getting some answers about her positions on national security and military policy. "I'll answer those questions when I'm the senator," Angle told the reporter. When he asked about answers voters would need before Election Day, she refused to respond. Asked about her desire to end U.S. participation in the United Nations, Angle again refused to answer, and said she wanted news outlets to help her "get out the vote." Noting the Nevadans involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reporter noted that Angle hasn't told anyone how she would vote on war-related issues. After she literally said nothing, the reporter added, "You are literally staying silent about the two wars we're in right now?" Angle finally turned and said, "You know, the two wars that we're in right now is exactly what we're in." First, I give the reporter, Nathan Baca, a lot of credit for doing the kind of journalism that needs to be done. Second, if reason had any meaning, a clip like this one would be an immediate career killer for anyone seeking powerful federal office. Just for good measure, also note that the Angle campaign, outraged that a reporter would ask a Senate candidate about her positions on two ongoing wars, announced late yesterday that the CBS affiliate would be prohibited from entering Angle's election night festivities. In 2010, journalists asking basic questions of U.S. Senate candidates are now punished by unhinged, right-wing campaigns. This is what's become of our political system. To paraphrase Lovitz, I can't believe Reid is losing to this challenger. —Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the religious right movement's considerable interest in the midterm election cycle. While religious right groups and activists have intermixed faith and politics -- often in legally dubious ways -- for many years, one example this week captured the larger trend with unique salience. The activist is David Barton, a pseudo-historian who regularly partners with deranged media personality Glenn Beck, who this week made a veiled threat of divine punishment to evangelical Christians who might be tempted to vote the "wrong" way.
"One day," Barton insists, "we'll stand before [God] and He'll say, 'What did you do with that vote I gave you?' And we'll have to answer.... If we stand before God and He says, 'Why did you vote for a leader who's attempting to redefine my institution of marriage and who wills the unborn children that I knew before they were in the womb?' If He asks us that and our answer is 'Because that leader was good on jobs and the economy,' He's not going to accept that." Yes, David Barton feels comfortable claiming to know what his God finds acceptable and unacceptable, and then relaying that information along to the rest of us. By the way, isn't the implication here that Barton thinks pro-choice candidates who support marriage equality are also better stewards of the economy? Either way, expect similar rhetoric in conservative Christian churches nationwide tomorrow. Also from the God Machine this week: * Still more fallout from the scandal involving the Roman Catholic Church and the sexual abuse of children: "Attorneys for nearly 150 people who claim sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests made nearly 10,000 pages of previously sealed internal church documents public Sunday, revealing at least one previously unknown decades-old case in which a priest under police investigation was allowed to leave the U.S. after the Diocese of San Diego intervened." (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip) * Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence under Donald Rumsfeld, continues his hysterical evangelical crusade, and this week released a video claiming that the Affordable Care Act is evidence of a "Marxist insurgency" and the looming threat of "Brownshirts." * In preparation for a possible presidential campaign, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is continuing to reach out to the religious right, and delivered a bizarre series of remarks this week at Liberty University, the Virginia school created by deceased radical cleric Jerry Falwell. * Military chaplains who don't like gays are deeply worried about the possible repeal of DADT. * And a recent survey asked Americans about Christianity's greatest positive and negative contribution to society in recent years. Well over a third (36%) "either did not think or could not think of any positive contributions Christianity had made." Ouch. (thanks to D.J. for the heads-up) —Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
NOW THERE'S A STRONG CAMPAIGN SLOGAN.... In June 2009, Rep. Mark Kirk (R) of Illinois was one of just eight House Republicans to break party ranks and support the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which included a cap-and-trade system. Far-right activists, who believe overwhelming evidence pointing to global warming is a communist conspiracy, vowed revenge. Exactly one month to the day later, Kirk, fearing a primary loss as he ran for the Senate, reversed course and announced his opposition to the bill he'd just supported. Kirk, whose reputation for borderline-pathological dishonesty is well deserved, has never fully explained why he voted for legislation he disagrees with. This week, a voter pressed Kirk on this point.
I suppose there's a refreshing quality to candor like this, but in the midst of an extremely close Senate race, it doesn't exactly seem like a winning message: Vote Kirk, he supports sweeping national legislation without getting his facts straight. It wasn't like this bill snuck up on him. The ACES legislation followed an extensive House debate, in which Kirk was confronted with plenty of arguments on both sides. It was his job to evaluate the information and choose wisely. Given the quality of the bill, Kirk made the right call. That is, until Kirk decided he was for it before he was against it, and only voted the way he did because of "ignorance" and a "lack of understanding." I'll give Kirk a B+ for candor, an F for competence, and a D for judgment. —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT INTIMIDATING VOTERS.... It's been pretty common lately to hear Republicans raise the specter of "voter intimidation," as if roving bands of Democrats are using threats to coerce the public. When pressed for evidence, the GOP claims tend to quickly fall apart. On the other hand, illegal voter intimidation does exist; it's just that Democrats aren't the one who are doing it.
The deceptive propaganda was literally placed inside the envelope with workers' paychecks, and was printed on McDonald's corporate letterhead. The franchise owner didn't deny the incident, but apologized through a corporate spokesperson. McDonald's USA, the parent company, denied having a role in the workplace voter coercion. Attorney Allen Schulman, who brought the voter intimidation scheme to public light, explained: "The handbill endorses candidates who have in essence pledged to roll back the minimum wage and eviscerate the safety net that protects the most vulnerable members of our workforce. But it's more than that. When a corporation like McDonald's intimidates its employees into voting a specific way, it violates both state and federal election law." Schulman has turned over the materials to local prosecutors, and is seeking a criminal probe. It's not an unreasonable request -- Gerald Hebert, a former Acting Chief of the Voting Section of the Justice Department now with the Campaign Legal Center, said that it's possible Siegfried's actions may even violate federal law. I don't imagine this will be on Fox News anytime soon, but it's something to keep in mind the next time right-wing voices allege "voter intimidation" tactics this year.
ABC NEWS IS DOING WHAT?.... About three months ago, in the wake of the Shirley Sherrod fiasco, E.J. Dionne Jr. identified activist Andrew Breitbart as a "right-wing hit man." Dionne added that the incident "ought to be a turning point in American politics," one in which "the mainstream media" starts appreciating the difference between "news and propaganda." A few days prior, The Atlantic's Josh Green noted, "[I]t's hard for me to see how the media can justify continuing to treat Breitbart as simply a roguish provocateur. He's something much darker." As it turns out, it wasn't a "turning point," and it's not hard at all for the media to justify taking Breitbart seriously.
It's hard to overstate how ridiculous this is. For ABC News to invite a professional propagandist -- a man ABC News has exposed on the air as a practiced liar -- to be part of its election-night coverage is an embarrassment to the network. The point is not that conservative voices should be excluded from broadcasts like these. The point is major news outlets are supposed to have credible journalistic standards. And yet, these same outlets keep undermining the discourse by extending invitations to right-wing activists, who really have no business in pretending to belong in such a setting. ABC's explanation for this is woefully unpersuasive -- if the right-wing hatchet-man starts lying on the air, "we have other voices to call him on it"? Here's a crazy thought: if ABC News has reason to believe Breitbart might try to deceive the network's audience, then maybe he shouldn't be part of the election-night broadcast. For that matter, this isn't exactly a recipe for quality journalism -- Breitbart will spew propaganda; others on the broadcast will be there to "call him on it." Viewers will, in other words, hear some falsehoods and some corrections, but won't necessarily know who's right. I'd be surprised if ABC News reversed course so close to Tuesday, but it's important that the network realize it's making a humiliating mistake. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
DETAILS OF TERROR PLOT COME TO LIGHT.... Throughout the day yesterday, there were reports on a potential terrorist threat targeting the U.S., but the accounts were at best incomplete, and at times, contradictory. Yesterday afternoon, the White House briefed the media on the details of what we know so far, and what President Obama characterized as a "credible terrorist threat" to the United States.
It's likely more information will yet come to light, but based on reports this morning, the explosive was put in computer printer cartridges. We do not yet know how the explosives were intended to be activated. The U.S. government was alerted to the shipment by intelligence officials in Saudi Arabia, who closely monitor radicals in Yemen -- where plots against Saudis are not uncommon -- and who were able to give U.S. officials detailed information about the threat. And before anyone starts talking about the need to invade Yemen, it's worth emphasizing that Yemeni officials are reportedly "working closely with the United States and other countries to assess the episode," and John Brennan, the president's top counterterrorism adviser, offered public praise for Yemen's cooperation. As for the politics of all of this, Republicans are not yet whining or trying to exploit the threat for partisan gain -- the day is young -- and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, conceded late yesterday, "So far everything has worked the right way." I can only assume Liz Cheney and Rudy Giuliani will be along soon to argue otherwise. In any case, while these explosives have been found, U.S. officials continue to search for other possible packages, just in case. "We don't want to presume we know the bounds of this plot, so we are looking at all packages," Brennan said. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
October 29, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Terror threat: "Two packages containing explosive devices originating in Yemen and bound for two places of Jewish worship in Chicago set off a global terror alert that began when one package was found at a FedEx facility in Dubai on Thursday, and then another was found early Friday morning near London, sparking a day of dramatic precautionary activity in the United States." * Earlier media reports suggested there were no explosives found in the packages. President Obama told reporters this afternoon, however, that there were explosives and this represented a "credible terrorist threat." * The packages reportedly originated in Yemen, where the "underwear bomber" originated, but the president did not explicitly assign blame to al Qaeda. * I feel like we've heard this before, but maybe this time will be different: "Iran said Friday that it would resume talks with the West about its nuclear program in November, according to officials at the European Union." * Just like the good ol' days -- Halliburton trying to shift the blame: "Halliburton, whose failed cement job on the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico was identified as a contributing factor to the deadly blowout by a presidential investigative panel on Thursday, is defending its work and assigning the blame for the accident to BP." * Some clever folks launch the "Vote Sanity" initiative. * Hearing Rush Limbaugh accuse Democrats of racism buries the needle on the Irony-O-Meter. * If Tim Profitt is waiting for Lauren Valle to apologize for having her head under his shoe in Kentucky earlier this week, he shouldn't hold his breath. * I fear the moral of the story is, if Glenn Beck criticizes you on the air, his minions will threaten to kill you. * The bigot on the Arkansas school board who urged "fags" and "queers" to kill themselves told CNN last night that he will resign. * Dick Morris will say anything for money. * Is Jonah Goldberg seriously suggesting someone should murder Julian Assange? It sure seems like it. * University of Phoenix draws renewed scrutiny: "Apparently it's not just the coming education debt rules about which the University of Phoenix needs to worry. Federal regulators have asked the school's parent company, Apollo Group Inc., to provide information and documentation about the company's internal practices." * And Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker announced this week -- in a televised campaign ad, no less -- that the federal judge who found DADT unconstitutional is as big a "security threat" as al Qaeda. He wasn't kidding. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
FOUR QUESTIONS.... Daily Kos' Jed Lewison posed four questions today, encouraging Republicans and undecided voters to consider the answers. They're fairly compelling. (John Hodgman from "The Daily Show" conceded he was "surprised" by some of the answers.)
Regular readers probably know the answers to these, but the facts are nevertheless rather striking. On the first question, the private sector, through September, has added 863,000 private-sector jobs in 2010, for an average of about 96,000 jobs created per month. In the final year of the Bush administration, after eight years of experimenting with the conservative economic agenda, the economy lost 3.8 million jobs, for an average of about 863,000 job losses per month. On the second, the deficit has gone from $1.416 trillion to $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion. For the deficit hawks who keep track of such things, it's one of the largest, quickest declines in nominal terms on record. On the third, all of the major Wall Street indexes have soared since the end of the Bush/Cheney administration. And on the fourth, it'll be John Boehner (R-Ohio) hanging out with Nazi re-enactor Rich Iott the weekend before the election. —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT-FREE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.... In the wake of the 1994 midterms, it was not uncommon for many -- in the Democratic Party, in the media, in the country in general -- to wonder whether the results would have been different had the health care reform effort not failed. Maybe, the thinking went at the time, if Dems could have pointed to a milestone accomplishment, and hadn't suffered such a legislative fiasco, they wouldn't have lost the House and Senate. Sixteen years later, a "war" is beginning to break out in some Democratic circles with a similar question: maybe if Dems didn't achieve this milestone accomplishment, they wouldn't be poised to endure drastic losses in the midterm elections. Obviously, it's a speculative issue, and no one can say with confidence what public attitudes would be like now if (a) health care reform had failed; or (b) Democrats never even tried to get it done. The economy is, was, and will be the top issue on voters' minds, and right now, it's just not good enough to help the incumbent majority withstand the prevailing/historical winds. But that won't stop the debate. Jonathan Cohn imagines an alternate universe in which Democrats failed to deliver on health care reform and President Obama dropped the issue. It's well worth reading.
This is, of course, a description of imaginary circumstances, but the point should be obvious. Similarly, Matt Yglesias' take yesterday was very compelling: "[O]bviously you don't want to risk a congressional majority over something trivial. But the Affordable Care Act is not a trivial law. It's one of the most important laws of the past 30 years. So then the question becomes, was it important in a good way? I think it was. And that's the job of a congressional majority -- to pass important bills that change the world for the better. I think the 111th Congress did a fair amount of that." This is, I've long assumed, why people seek to serve the public through elected office in the first place. The alternative, by the way, is leaving a dysfunctional health care system in place for the indefinite future -- bankrupting families, businesses, and government agencies. As Greg Sargent noted today, "Those who think Dems shouldn't have tried reform this time around need to be asked when Dems would have gotten their next bite at the health care apple -- particularly with such big majorities." —Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
CRIST WOULD CAUCUS WITH DEMS.... It's almost certainly a moot point. Florida's U.S. Senate race, barring an 11th-hour surge or a polling failure of epic proportions, is just about over, and far-right Republican Marco Rubio is poised to win fairly easily. But ever since Gov. Charlie Crist was driven out of the Republican Party for being too moderate, and decided to run for the Senate as an independent, there's been a nagging question: if he won, which party would he caucus with? When pressed, Crist tends to say he would caucus "with the people," or with "Florida's best interests," which is deliberately vague. At this point, though, there's not much doubt about which direction he'd go.
Well, "going to" is probably the wrong way to phrase this, since Rubio is cruising, but it's nevertheless an interesting thing to say. Keep in mind, John Morgan isn't just some random Crist associate -- he's a long-time ally of the governor's, who has advised and raised money for Crist's campaigns, including when Crist was still a Republican. Over the summer, Kendrick Meek (D) believed his path to victory was watching Rubio and Crist split the right, while he picked up Florida Democrats. That was the right strategy for the wrong candidate -- Rubio is watching Crist and Meek split the sensible vote. Nevertheless, Morgan's remarks, if publicized, add just a little more incentive for Floridian Democrats before they head to the polls on Tuesday. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
IDIOCY WATCH.... In 2009, three Americans were detained and imprisoned by the Iranian government while hiking near the Iran/Iraq border. Two of the three -- Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer -- remain behind bars, accused of espionage. The United States, of course, wants Iran to set them free, and this morning, the State Department's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Philip Crowley used Twitter to send a sardonic message to the Iranian president: "Happy birthday President Ahmadinejad. Celebrate by sending Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer home. What a gift that would be.... Your 54th year was full of lost opportunities. Hope in your 55th year you will open Iran to a different relationship with the world." Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) apparently only read the first four words, doesn't know what sardonic humor is, and responded with a Twitter message that's so blisteringly stupid, I almost wonder if someone else posted it to make her look like an idiot. The tweet read:
I'd swear she's getting dumber. Honestly, how could anyone above the age of 12 look at Philip Crowley's messages and interpret them as "coddling enemies"? * Update: I wondered if Palin, embarrassed, might pull the item down once she realized how ridiculous it was. Alas, she doubled down with yet another tweet: "Americans awaken 2 bizarre natl security thinking of Obama Admn: Ahmadinejad b'day greeting after call 4 Israel's destruction speaks volumes." Actually, Palin's inability to read at a junior-high-school level is what speaks volumes. —Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)
THE TROOPS DON'T MIND, EITHER.... During his discussion with bloggers at the White House this week, President Obama was asked about the future of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay asked, "Is there a strategy for the lame-duck session to..." and the president interrupted to say, "Yes." Pressed for some details, Obama added, "I'm not going to tip my hand now. But there is a strategy ... and my hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year." The president went on to say with just a couple of GOP votes to overcome the Republican filibuster, "this is done." And by "this," I think the president meant ending DADT entirely. I have no idea what strategy the White House has in mind, but I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with it.
Not surprisingly, the results were not unanimous, and some servicemen and women -- many of whom almost certainly already serve alongside gay colleagues-- would rather quit than be part of an armed services with openly-gay volunteers. According to the reports, though, these anti-gay troops were in the minority. The significance of the report, still a month away from release, relates strongly to the debate in the Senate. Several weeks ago, Republicans, led by the strongly anti-gay John McCain, blocked funding for the troops because of a provision that could lead to DADT's repeal. To hear Republicans tell it, Congress couldn't possibly move on this before first reading the results of the Pentagon's poll of 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, as well as 150,000 family members. The idea, I suspect, is to bring the defense authorization bill back to the floor in the lame-duck session, after Dec. 1, so McCain and his cohorts will have their main talking point taken away. At that point, a majority of the troops, a majority of American civilians, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and two of his recent predecessors will all be saying the exact same thing: it's time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And at that point, McCain and other anti-gay senators will come up with some new rationale, and depending on how things turn out in the Senate races in Illinois and Delaware, Dems will have to struggle even more to find GOP votes to overcome the filibuster. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
THE ADDED BENEFIT OF BEING TRUE.... On "The Daily Show" the other night, Jon Stewart asked President Obama about unemployment, and the president responded with some relevant details. "We lost 4 million jobs before I was sworn in; 750,000 jobs the month I was sworn in; 600,000, the month after that; 600,000 the month after that," Obama noted. "So most of the jobs that we lost were lost before the economic policies we put in place had any effect." PolitiFact decided to see whether that was true. It was.
Of course, this assumes that objective, "noncontroversial" truths still matter. There's reason to believe otherwise. Indeed, most Americans will probably believe the exact opposite, while many more will react negatively to the truth, dismissing it as "Bush-bashing" and "making excuses." And voters who claim to care about job creation and economic growth will, in turn, elect more policymakers who want to go back to the policies that failed, and will then wonder why things didn't get better. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * In Nevada's U.S. Senate race, Sharron Angle (R) backers are distributing flyers to Nevada seniors telling them their "lifespan will depend" on how they vote on Tuesday. Demagoguery doesn't get much more odious than this. * On a related note, Angle leads Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in a new Mason-Dixon poll, 49% to 45%. It is the sixth consecutive poll to show the borderline-deranged candidate poised to win a U.S. Senate seat. * In Wisconsin, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Russ Feingold (D) continuing to struggle badly, trailing right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R) by nine points, 53% to 44%. The same poll shows Scott Walker (R) leading Wisconsin's gubernatorial race over Tom Barrett (D) by the same margin. * In Florida's gubernatorial race, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows Alex Sink (D) narrowly leading Rick Scott (R), 46% to 43%. * In California's U.S. Senate race, a new Field Poll shows Barbara Boxer (D) leading Carly Fiorina (R), 49% to 41%. * In an unexpected twist, Alexi Giannoulias, Illinois' Democratic Senate candidate, has announced that he is only running positive campaign ads over the last seven days of the campaign. His opponent, Rep. Mark Kirk (R), appears to be doing the opposite. * As the bizarre U.S. Senate race in Louisiana wraps up, much of the closing discussion is about Sen. David Vitter's (R) background in hiring prostitutes, despite running on a "family-values" platform. * In Delaware's U.S. Senate race, Chris Coons (D) still leads Christine O'Donnell (R), but the margin varies by poll. A new Fairleigh Dickinson PublicMind survey shows Coons up by 19 points, but a Monmouth University poll puts Coons' lead at 10 points. * While it looked for a while like the outcome of Texas' gubernatorial race might be in doubt, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows incumbent Gov. Rick Perry (R) ahead of former Houston Mayor Bill White (D), 53% to 44%. * In Michigan's gubernatorial race, the latest Detroit News poll shows Rick Snyder (R) cruising past Virg Bernero (D), 53% to 35%. * And in Massachusetts's gubernatorial race, a new Suffolk University poll shows incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick (D) hanging on against Charlie Baker (R), 46% to 39%. Independent Tim Cahill is third with 8%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
THE CHALLENGE OF OVERCOMING IGNORANCE, PART II.... We talked in the last item about public confusion. When it comes to taxes, economic growth, and the financial industry rescue, what most voters believe is actually the exact opposite of reality. But this ignorance also extends to perceptions about Congress.
If this sounds familiar, it's because a separate poll conducted earlier this month by Pew and National Journal, found similar results. Remember, this isn't about merit. Gallup didn't ask whether folks like what Congress did; it asked whether people perceive the Congress as having accomplished more or less than the typical Congress. Whether one is fully satisfied or not, denying the policy breakthroughs of the last two years is a serious mistake. Evaluating the quality of these accomplishments is a subjective question, open to all kinds of competing opinions. Evaluating whether the accomplishments exceed the norm is an objective question and the answer, whether people realize it or not, is unambiguous. I don't expect the public to have an extensive knowledge of federal policymaking history, but I at least hoped Americans would realize the scope of recent accomplishments. We are, after all, talking about a two-year span in which Congress passed and the president signed the Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, Wall Street reform, student loan reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, etc. Policymakers might yet add to this list in the lame-duck session. Some of these efforts have been decades in the making. In the case of health care reform, politicians have been talking about a major overhaul for a full century, but it took this Congress and this president to get it done. A plurality of Americans, though, perceive this Congress as having done less than usual. I'm not even sure how a political system is supposed to function with an electorate so far detached from reality. Again, maybe you agree with these accomplishments, or maybe you think they were mistakes. That's not the point here. What's worth acknowledging is that we haven't seen this many accomplishments, on this scale, in a very long time. Norm Ornstein has characterized this Congress as being the most productive in 45 years. Rachel Maddow recently went further, observing, "The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that." Whether folks realize it or not, this is why the Republicans' right-wing base is as animated this year as it is -- it's not because Dems are pushing a lot of key progressive priorities that have languished for years; it's because Dems are passing a lot of key progressive priorities that have languished for years. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
THE CHALLENGE OF OVERCOMING IGNORANCE.... In a democracy, the system breaks down and produces counter-productive results when those in charge -- the voters -- are uninformed. And the fact is, a whole lot of Americans are deeply confused about the facts.
Public perceptions aren't even close to reality -- by a 52% to 19% margin, for example, likely voters think their federal tax burden has gone up over the last couple of years, even though it hasn't. Indeed, Democrats approved one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in American history, and the public has no idea that it even happened. The same is true of the strength of the economy in general -- the economy stopped shrinking and started growing more than a year ago, but 61% of respondents in this poll said the economy continued to shrink in 2010, even though it hasn't. In general, I've long considered one of President Obama's better qualities is his reluctance to talk down to voters. But it's possible his assumptions about maturity and the public discourse are simply too generous -- leaders can't assume the electorate has the wisdom to ignore nonsense when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Worse, this rewards Republicans, not just at the ballot box, but for lying uncontrollably for nearly two years. GOP leaders no doubt see polls like this and realize that the more nonsense they pump into the national discourse, the more anxiety-ridden Americans will believe things that aren't true. I'll gladly leave it to others to explain how one overcomes such systemic ignorance, because I honestly don't have the foggiest idea. It's one thing for policymakers to adopt policies that make things better; it's something else for much of the public to simply ignore those policies and reject reality altogether. To be sure, folks are busy. They have jobs and families, and it's not easy keeping up on the details of current events. I don't expect the typical middle-class household, struggling with bills and worried about the future, to start reading CBO reports in their spare time. But it's worth realizing that uninformed voters make unwise decisions. The public has enormous responsibilities in our political system, and right now, far too many aren't prepared to act on those responsibilities in an effective way. Ignorance spreads like a cancer, and right about now, it's making our body politic pretty sick. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (74)
U.S. ECONOMY KEEPS GROWING, BUT NOT WELL.... The good news is, the U.S. economy continued to grow in the third quarter. The better news is, the economy was even slightly healthier than it was in the second quarter. The bad news is, this kind of tepid growth isn't even close to what we need for a robust economic recovery.
The Bloomberg News report noted that the growth in consumer spending was the best in nearly four years, which it considered "a sign the expansion is developing staying power." That's nice, but 2% growth isn't the kind of economy that will bring down the unemployment rate. Of course, ideally results like these would encourage policymakers to take additional actions to improve conditions, but that hasn't been possible due to Republican obstructionism this year, and it almost certainly won't happen after the midterms, after GOP candidates make sizable gains and demand an end to any efforts to grow the economy (other than tax cuts for the wealthy, which do little to grow the economy). And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter since the Great Recession began in late 2007. The red columns show the economy under the Bush administration; the blue columns show the economy under the Obama administration.
MEEK'S REPUBLICAN CHAMPIONS EMERGE.... It was always the scenario Republicans feared. The only development likely to prevent Marco Rubio (R) from winning Florida's U.S. Senate race fairly easily is if Kendrick Meek (D) stepped aside, and his supporters shifted to Gov. Charlie Crist (I). And as we learned overnight, as of a week ago, that very nearly happened. But now that the deal appears to have fallen through, Republicans have a new message: the entire effort is evidence of some kind of racism. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement:
I rather doubt anyone is actually supposed to take this seriously; it's just too ridiculous on its face. The RNC may not have heard, but Bill Clinton tends to have a fair amount of credibility in many African American communities, and the idea that Clinton tried to broker a deal to prevent a far-right victory because of some kind of racial animus is pretty crazy, even for Michael Steele. But it's especially amusing to see Republicans push this line given the larger context. Steele may not have noticed, but this election season, it's been hard to overlook the systemic Republican attempts to use identity politics to win elections. Steele conceded earlier this year that his party relied on a racially-divisive Southern Strategy for at least four decades. He neglected to mention that the party's affinity for the approach never really went away. The examples from just this cycle are too numerous to list, but it's worth taking note of West Virginia's John Raese's attempts at ethnic "humor," Nevada's Sharron Angle's racist TV ad followed by her telling Hispanic students they look Asian, New York's Carl Paladino's racist emails, Colorado's Tom Tancredo's call for a return to Jim Crow policies, Kentucky's Rand Paul's discomfort with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a variety of Republican House candidates who've embraced elements of white supremacism. Also note that the Republican Party and its media outlets have spent much of the past several months obsessing over "controversies" with unmistakable undertones -- Park51, the New Black Panther Party, Birther nonsense, talk of "liberation theology" -- all of which seemed focused on scaring the bejesus out of white people in an election year. But now the RNC would have African-American voters believe that Clinton and other Dems somehow treated Meek unfairly because of race. The irony is rich. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
CLINTON NEARLY BROKERED DEAL IN FLORIDA SENATE RACE.... In Florida's closely watched U.S. Senate race, the campaign has unfolded exactly as the center-left feared -- the far-right former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) is cruising to a comfortable victory, as former Gov. Charlie Crist (I) and Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) split the reasonable vote. To prevent a Rubio win, the only plausible scenario was to have Meek drop out, throw his support to Crist, or both. Publicly, Meek refused to even consider the possibility. Privately, it appears a deal very nearly came together, thanks to the intervention of Meek's most prominent advocate. Ben Smith had the scoop late yesterday.
The Meek campaign is denying that any such deal was ever in place. But multiple reports from a variety of outlets note that the former president was involved in talks; Meek had expressed a willingness to consider dropping out; and Crist, who had originally reached out to the Clinton camp, was very much involved in the process. Indeed, the sources aren't exactly anonymous here. Clinton told CNN he'd talked with Meek about the possible arrangement; top Clinton aide Doug Band confirmed that Meek was open to the deal; and Crist told MSNBC that he was in direct talks with Clinton's team. Crist's campaign spokesperson even issued a statement describing the Politico report as "accurate." This is not, in other words, anonymously-sourced campaign gossip. Accounts vary on the timeline, but Clinton apparently believed he'd completed the deal last week, and an endorsement rally had been set for Tuesday, Oct. 26, in Miami. Meek, however, changed his mind this past weekend. So, what happens now? Given the intensity of the Meek campaign's response, I'd be surprised if the Democrat suddenly reversed course, just five days before Election Day. In fact, I'm not even sure if it would make much of a difference -- Meek's name would still be on the ballot, and many Meek backers have already participated in early voting. But the news itself, which I suspect will be a hot topic of conversation throughout the Sunshine State today, may also reinforce a not-so-subtle message to Florida Democrats: if defeating Rubio is the principal goal, Crist is the candidate better positioned to make that happen. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
October 28, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * I'm looking forward to seeing some serious consequences for this: "Halliburton knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday." * Death toll in Indonesia tops 400. * It's still too high, but this is encouraging: "Fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week, the second drop in a row and a hopeful sign the job market could be improving. The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for jobless benefits dropped by 21,000 to a seasonally adjusted 434,000 in the week that ended Oct. 23." This far exceeded analysts' expectations. * Had it not been for pointless GOP obstructionism, this could have happened months ago: "Just one month after the President signed the Small Business Jobs Act, SBA has supported nearly $3 billion in loans to more than 5,000 small businesses across the country. That's more than 5,000 small business owners who've felt first-hand, within one month, the impact this new law is having on our economy." * Remember, GM keeps paying us back. That's a good thing. * Offensive anti-gay rhetoric is, alas, not uncommon. But Arkansas District School board member Clint McCance's rant was more disgusting than most. * On a related note, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who struggling to a surprising degree to keep up with current events, continues to really dislike Muslims. * I wonder if RNC Chairman Michael Steele realizes that Democrats hope he stays on for another term. I'm guessing not. * Fox News, in an apparent attempt to become a parody of itself, has created an email address so its Republican fans can alert them to non-existent examples of "voter fraud." Seriously. * Pundits didn't seem especially pleased with the appearance, but I actually kind of liked President Obama's interview with Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show." * What college costs and how Americans buy it. * The right gets pretty worked up if a court cites foreign precedent, but what about Vulcans? * I'm not a parent, but if I were, I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio). Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
IT'S A GOOD THING OBAMA SAVED THE AUTO INDUSTRY, CONT'D.... Remember, if we'd followed the Republican economic policy last year, this wouldn't happen.
New production means more work means more jobs. In other words, it's good news. As a political matter, MSNBC's First Read noted in July, "We said it at the time: As the [auto industry] bailout goes, so goes the Obama presidency. It was the bailout everyone in America could understand, and it wasn't popular.... A year later, however, the Obama administration believes it has a good story to tell." The administration's right. Republicans were prepared to let the American auto industry fail at the height of the Great Recession, but President Obama rescued it instead. If the auto bailout and Obama's presidency are inextricably tied, the White House has reason to boast. It also reminds me of a point I've been meaning to get to. I mentioned the other day that Ford reported earnings of $1.7 billion in the third quarter, and now expects to have zero net debt by the end of the calendar year -- a year ahead of schedule. Despite the still-sluggish economy, Ford's third quarter was the best in more than 20 years, and I again emphasized how glad I am the president rescued the American automotive industry. Torr Leonard suggested this was off-base, since Ford wasn't part of the GM/Chrysler rescue. It's not an unreasonable point, but by all available evidence, it's mistaken. Ford may not have been bailed out, but the company, like its American competitors, was struggling badly. If GM and Chrysler had collapsed, there's absolutely no doubt that Ford wouldn't have had the suppliers it needed to survive. Ford's executives have already acknowledged this; it's not exactly a contentious point. I realize the auto industry rescue wasn't popular; bailouts never are. But as industry production and profits keep improving, this definitely belongs in the political "win" category for the Obama White House. The president's approach is a success story, and we can all be very glad the decision was in his, not Republican, hands. —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
BENNET'S FAITH IS ENTIRELY 'MAINSTREAM'.... In Colorado's very competitive U.S. Senate race, incumbent appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) has been attacked for all kinds of things, so I suppose it's not too surprising that the right would take an interest in his religious beliefs. This week, Politics Daily sent the Bennet campaign a questionnaire, and we learned that Bennet "does not affiliate with a particular religion but says he believes in God." Growing up, the senator was raised by a Jewish mother and Christian father (for me, it was the other way around), and the questionnaire quoted him saying, "I am proud that both heritages are part of me, and I believe in God." Bennet and his wife were married by an Episcopal priest, but he is not a member of a congregation. This doesn't sound especially interesting, but far-right pundit Erick Erickson is unimpressed. After noting what he perceived as unfair criticisms of Republicans, CNN's Erickson wrote a RedState post arguing:
This is pretty silly. If someone chooses not to join a specific congregation, that doesn't mean the person "rejects religion." For that matter, I'm not even sure what "does not believe in organized religion" means. A person can chose not to affiliate with a specific tradition without rejecting the idea of "organized religion." But just as important is the notion that Bennet's approach to religion -- he believes in God, but doesn't affiliate with a particular religion -- is somehow "outside the mainstream." At the risk of getting into a semantics debate over the word "mainstream," Bennet's beliefs are actually quite common. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life publishes an annual "Religious Landscape Survey," which is ecumenical, non-ideological, and well respected by experts. In its most recent report, the Pew Forum found more than 12% of Americans -- not including self-identified atheists -- don't identify with a specific religious group. That may not sound like much, but the "Unaffiliated" are actually the nation's fourth largest religious group, representing a larger percentage of Americans than Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Mormons combined -- times two. To characterize Bennet's beliefs as "outside the mainstream" is absurd. —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
AT LEAST HE RESISTED THE URGE TO STOMP ON HER HEAD.... If we could just go a few days without reports of an angry conservative assaulting a young progressive woman, I'd sure appreciate it.
I did some cursory poking around to see if the young woman was injured, but that doesn't appear to be the case. But that hardly makes stories like this any better. That we've seen more than one of the incidents reinforces the notion of a larger problem. Josh Marshall added, "What stands out to me though is how each one of these seems to be a nutshell symbolism of the boiled down essence -- the precipitate -- of blue and red state America, almost to a degree we wouldn't buy from a writer if we found it in a novel." Amanda Terkel, who put together a helpful round-up of related incidents, also reported this afternoon, "This election season, a man was arrested for hitting a protester at a rally for Washington GOP Senate candidate Dino Rossi, a man stomped on the head of a woman at a campaign event for Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul, local police wrestled to the ground a Democratic man at an event for Rep. Eric Cantor (R), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) received suspicious powder to his office, biker supporters of Florida GOP congressional candidate Allen West harassed a Democratic tracker and Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller's private security force handcuffed and detained a reporter. "And all that was in just the past two weeks." I realize it's an election season. Passions are running high and the right-wing Republican base has been whipped into a frenzy, but with public safety in mind, here's hoping things settle down soon. —Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
A MEDIA STRATEGY LIKE NO OTHER.... If there have been modern, competitive U.S. Senate candidates who's adopted a media strategy similar to Sharron Angle, I can't think of them. In the latest development, the extremist Nevadan said she'll begin speaking to journalists at major media outlets -- Angle calls them the "lamestream media" -- but only after she's elected.
Consider how this ties into the larger context, and how the borderline-deranged Senate candidate has crafted a fairly specific media strategy. Shortly after winning her primary campaign, Angle drew increased scrutiny from the Nevada and D.C. media, but she literally refused to speak to reporters. When pressed to defend her own remarks and positions, Angle had a habit of literally running away. When the national party moved in to help make Angle less of a laughingstock, the media strategy took shape. In July, the radical Republican conceded, for example, that she only wants to talk to media outlets that will let her beg for cash on the air. In August, Angle went on to say that she's trying to manipulate the media into being "our friend." Asked to explain what that means, she said, "[W]e wanted [journalists] to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." I've just never heard a candidate seeking a powerful public office boasting, on the record and on camera, that her campaign's media strategy is built around the notion of manipulating news organizations, getting the questions Angle wants, so she can give the answers she wants, so the public will hear the news the way Angle wants it to be heard. More recently, Angle has taken to using decoys to fool reporters covering her campaign. And now Angle is assuring reporters at "lamestream" outlets (what is this, junior high?) that she'll talk to journalists, but only if voters elect her first. I feel like there's a doctoral thesis for some journalism student in here somewhere. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
BUCK TRIES, FAILS TO CLARIFY CHURCH-STATE LINE.... We learned this week that extremist Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) has told Colorado voters, "I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state. It was not written into the Constitution." He added that the very idea "concerns me a great deal." As a substantive matter, Buck had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. This week, the right-wing candidate appeared on CNN to try to clarify matters. He failed. First Buck said his comments were "taken out of context." That was untrue. Then he said church-state separation had gone too far, but cited a scenario that's also wrong.
This is what happens when confused, far-right politicians talk about subjects they don't understand. In Buck's mind, the separation of church and state is a problem if it prevents non-proselytizing, faith-based groups from receiving public funds to provide social services. But Buck neglected to do his homework and get his facts straight -- non-proselytizing, faith-based groups receive public funds to provide social services all the time. This isn't even new. For years, the Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Lutheran Social Services, and a wide variety of religious groups have sought and received public funds to run soup kitchens, host homeless shelters, etc. This has been the status quo for decades. In other words, Buck's example of excessive church-state separation is exactly backwards -- the very scenario he believes should exist already exists. The CNN interviewer wasn't aware of this, so there was no pushback. So, we're left with the same question. Ken Buck, in his own words, "strongly disagrees" with the very concept of separation of church and state. Can he explain why? —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW -- 2010 VERSION.... When Arizona considered and passed its infamous anti-immigrant measure earlier this year, it was easy to see it as the result of a rise in right-wing bigotry. But how the proposal came to be is actually more complicated than that. NPR has a remarkable report this week about Arizona's SB1070, which requires those who can't prove their citizenship to be locked up after law enforcement thinks they might appear to have entered the country illegally. But it's worth remembering that it wasn't anti-immigrant, Republican, or Tea Party groups that came up with the idea.
Late last year, a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) held a meeting in D.C. for its members, which include state lawmakers, assorted organizations like the NRA, and powerful corporations like ExxonMobil. The billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America was also on hand, and connected with state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), who's spearheaded anti-immigrant efforts in Arizona. A business model was born. As the report explained, "According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market." So, at the ALEC event, members discussed and debated language, and sent Pearce back to Arizona with a proposal in hand. Four months later, NPR's piece noted, "that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona's immigration law." In case this doesn't appear quite nefarious enough for you, also note that most of the co-sponsors of SB1070 were attendees to the ALEC event. The Corrections Corporation of America quickly hired a powerful new lobbyist, and 30 of the 36 co-sponsors received donations from prison lobbyists or prison companies. And wouldn't you know it, the bill quickly sailed through the state legislature, and onto Gov. Jan Brewer's desk. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
GOP SENATE HOPEFUL: GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN 'MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY'.... About a week ago, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on Fox News and was asked about threats from his party about shutting down the government next year. Steele replied, "I have not heard any candidates say that." Similarly, last month, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said talk of a possible shutdown is "absurd," and the very idea is little more than "the left" and "the media" attempting to "create an issue that doesn't exist." These guys really aren't paying close enough attention. At this point, all kinds of Republican candidates have been talking up the shutdown idea. The latest is Senate hopeful Mike Lee (R), the overwhelming favorite to win in Utah on Tuesday, who intends to force a confrontation on the federal debt limit.
The likelihood of the GOP using the debt limit to force a shutdown is already pretty high, and the fight could come early next year. It's also worth keeping in mind that a government shutdown isn't just "an inconvenience." As Alex Seitz-Wald noted this morning, "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's government shutdown in 1995 was disastrous; it ended up costing taxpayers over $800 million in losses for salaries paid to furloughed employees, delayed access to Medicare and Social Security, and caused a '[m]ajor curtailment in services,' including health services, to veterans." A few weeks ago, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked if we're likely to see a replay of the showdown that led Gingrich to shut down the government. Cantor replied, "No. I don't think the country needs or wants a shutdown." He added that when it comes to pursuing their agenda, Republicans "have to be careful" or they'll be "seen as a bunch of yahoos." The number of Republicans who disagree with Cantor appears to be growing. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * In a boost for Sen. Lisa Murkowski's write-in bid in Alaska, the state Supreme Court ruled late yesterday that "voters can look at a list of certified write-in candidates when they go to the polls." A lower court ruling had said the opposite. * Speaking of Alaska, a new Hays Research poll, which some have raised legitimate questions about, shows extremist candidate Joe Miller (R) dropping to third place in the U.S. Senate race. * In California's gubernatorial race, a new Field Poll shows Jerry Brown (D) leading Meg Whitman (R) 49% to 39%. A month ago, they were tied. A new Time/CNN poll shows Brown with a smaller lead, 51% to 44%. * In California's U.S. Senate race, Republican Carly Fiorina was released from the hospital yesterday, and is expected to be on the campaign trail today. A new Time/CNN poll shows her trailing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D), 50% to 45%. * In Florida's gubernatorial race, most recent polls show Rick Scott (R) with a modest lead, but a new Quinnipiac poll shows Alex Sink edging past Scott, 45% to 41%. * In Florida's U.S. Senate race, Quinnipiac shows Marco Rubio out in front, but with a smaller lead over Gov. Charlie Crist (I), 42% to 35%. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) is third with 15%. * In Colorado, the new Time/CNN poll shows Ken Buck with the narrowest of leads over Sen. Michael Bennet in the U.S. Senate race, 47% to 46%. The same poll shows John Hickenlooper (D) leading Colorado's gubernatorial race over Tom Tancredo (I), 51% to 37%. * In Nevada's U.S. Senate race, the new Time/CNN poll shows Sharron Angle (R) leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), 49% to 45%. * In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, the new Time/CNN poll shows Rand Paul (R) leading Jack Conway (D), 50% to 45%. * In Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, the new Time/CNN poll shows Pat Toomey (R) leading Joe Sestak (D), 49% to 45%. * And in Delaware, the details are still hard to understand, but Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell (R) has threatened to sue a local radio station which recorded an interview with the candidate. O'Donnell's campaign has threatened to "crush" the station if it aired the candidate's remarks. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
RAESE'S CONSERVATORY PLANS APPROVED -- IN FLORIDA.... Someone on Senate candidate John Raese's (R) campaign team probably should have realized that this would be embarrassing.
So, let me get this straight. Raese is running for the U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia, despite the fact that he and his family live in Florida. During the campaign in which Raese's extravagant lifestyle has become an issue, he decided to fight a local planning commission who resisted his plans to build a Victorian conservatory on the grounds of his Florida estate (near the exclusive country club where he's a member). Did it not occur to Raese or his team that West Virginians, in a relatively low-income state where the median household income is less than $38,000, might find it odd to vote for a Floridian who fights with a planning commission over his plan for a Victorian conservatory? It doesn't exactly scream "man of the people," and it certainly doesn't scream "man of the people of West Virginia." "Congratulations to John Raese on his big win in front of the Palm Beach Architecture Commission," DSCC Communications Director Eric Schultz said in a statement. "If your home is where your heart is, John Raese's heart is in Palm Beach. We wish him the best with this new solarium." —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
'THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR COMPROMISE'.... There seems to be a pattern here.
Republicans aren't exactly being subtle here. Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.... Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful." A few days earlier, Ken Buck (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Colorado, insisted, "I'm not compromising." House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) insisted the last Republican majority that worked with a Democratic White House -- you know, the one that shut down the government (twice) and impeached the president -- compromised "too much," and the GOP shouldn't repeat that mistake next year. I know I keep harping on this, but I think it matters. One of the angles I emphasized yesterday related to the perception that the American mainstream has a visceral dislike for this kind GOP rhetoric. Today, there's evidence to back that up. A newly-released New York Times/CBS News poll, for example, found that 75% of likely voters want Republicans, if they regain a majority, to compromise in order to get things done. (Keep in mind, 75% of Americans don't agree on much, but they agree on this.) Perhaps more important, 66% of self-identified likely Republican voters also want to see their party compromise with Democrats in the next Congress. It's not like Boehner can say, "Well, I'd love to compromise, but my party won't let me." Two-thirds of GOP voters are already urging him to negotiate and be willing to make concessions. In a new Bloomberg News poll, the results were even more one-sided. Respondents were asked, "If Republicans win control of Congress, what do you want to happen -- do you want the parties to stick to their principles even if means gridlock and nothing gets done, or do you want parties to work together even if it means compromising some principles?" A whopping 80% chose the latter. Boehner, McConnell, and their cohorts seem to think they'll be better off ignoring this vast American mainstream. "This," Boehner insists, "is not a time for compromise." We'll see how that turns out for them. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
'EVOLVING' ATTITUDES ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY.... President Obama sat down in the Roosevelt Room yesterday to chat with five high-profile bloggers -- Crooks & Liars' John Amato, Eschaton's Duncan Black, Daily Kos' Barbara Morrill, AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay, and Oliver Willis -- and over the course of about an hour, they covered quite a bit ground. There were several exchanges of note, but I was especially struck by a question from Sudbay about same-sex marriage. For context, I should note that while Obama had expressed at least some support for marriage equality before coming to Washington, his position for years has been to support civil unions, but not to go any further. It's why I found his response interesting.
He went on to add, "I think it's pretty clear where the trendlines are going," suggesting he sees marriage equality as an inevitability. Now, I don't want to read too much into this, and I didn't see or hear how Obama was communicating this, but reading the transcript leads me to think the president may actually be prepared to move on this, perhaps even before his re-election bid in two years. Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues, noted after learning of the comments, "Presidents don't usually think out loud unless they intend to send a signal that they are shifting a position." It's obviously speculative, and we haven't received any other hints on this, but it's something to keep an eye on, at a minimum. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
CHUTZPAH WATCH.... Even during an election cycle with some truly breathtaking Republican candidates, Ohio's Rich Iott seemed to stand out. Iott, recruited by the NRCC to take on Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) in Ohio's 9th district, hadn't made much of a name for himself, until we learned he spent years dressing up as a Nazi for recreational purposes. The story seemed to run its course a couple of weeks ago. The NRCC put some distance between Iott and the party, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) denounced Iott's recreational habits on national television. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), the would-be Speaker, has a very different approach.
The Atlantic's Josh Green, who broke the Iott story in the first place, talked to Boehner's office, which had no qualms about Boehner's role at the campaign rally. Boehner just doesn't care anymore. He assumed that Republicans will thrive on Tuesday no matter how offensive their campaigns, and he may very well be right. The DCCC's Ryan Rudominer responded, "Not only has John Boehner recruited, embraced, and financed a disgraced Nazi enthusiast running for Congress, but now Boehner is pouring gasoline on the fire by holding a campaign rally with him. Unbelievably, this comes on the heels of John Boehner also embracing an Ohio congressional candidate being sued for attempted rape and sexual assault, and another who has ties to an organized crime syndicate that brands women like cattle. Thumbing his nose at our nation's veterans, women, and people of the Jewish faith, all the while refusing to stand up for basic American values in order to try and win an election, apparently this is what Boehner meant when he said, 'We're not going to be any different than what we've been.'" Josh Marshall added, "I don't surprise easily. But who exactly told Boehner or someone on Boehner's staff this would be a good move on the weekend before election day?" This is what overconfidence looks like. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
WHAT SHARRON ANGLE CONSIDERS 'WICKED'.... In some uses of slang, I suppose "wicked" could be flattering. If Chuckie Sullivan says, "My friend Will Hunting is wicked smart," it's intended as praise. When extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle characterizes Social Security as "wicked," the Nevadan has a very different meaning in mind.
No, it's actually a "ridiculous leap" to defend Angle's bizarre nonsense. The notion of "wicked ways" has a fairly specific meaning. In Second Chronicles 7:14, the Bible reads, "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." When Angle refers to "wicked ways," she's referring to activities that are, in effect, ungodly. This, by the way, the same unhinged candidate who believes much of the federal government is at odds with the First Commandment. Also keep in mind, Angle has been trying to convince Nevadans that she actually wants to preserve Social Security, despite having already committed herself to trying to "phase out" the bedrock American safety-net program. What we have, then, is a borderline-deranged Senate hopeful telling reporters she supports Social Security, while quietly telling supporters she considers Social Security -- along with Medicare, abortion, divorce, and gay marriage -- to be "wicked." Despite this, and the bigotry, ignorance, extremism, and talk of violence that has come from the Republican campaign, of the last five polls out of Nevada, conducted over the last two weeks, Angle is ahead in all five. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
MAKING A PROFIT FROM PROFITT.... In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, Rand Paul (R) actually has a fairly compelling response to the awful head-stomping incident from Monday night: don't blame the candidate; he wasn't responsible. Tim Profitt, who still wants an apology from the defenseless woman whose head he stepped on, has been a prominent Paul backer and campaign coordinator, but after the incident, the campaign "disassociated" itself from the violent activist. Paul was exceedingly slow in actually condemning the assault -- he initially blamed "both sides" and "crowd control" -- but he eventually issued a statement saying the right thing. Indeed, the right-wing ophthalmologist even announced on Fox News that he would return the $1,950 his campaign received from Profitt. With this in mind, it's more challenging for Paul's detractors to pin the incident on the Republican nominee. At least it was, before Paul flip-flopped on the two grand.
This is bizarre. It's not as if Profitt's $1,950 is going to make the difference between winning and losing this race. If on Tuesday, Paul was committed to returning the money and severing ties between the campaign on Profitt, there's no reason to reverse course and do the opposite a day later. The significance here is the message Rand Paul is choosing to send. On Tuesday, the campaign disassociated itself from Profitt and his apparent crime. Yesterday, the campaign seemed to be suggesting that maybe Paul is comfortable with this political violence after all. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
October 27, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Scary stuff: "Federal law enforcement authorities have arrested a Northern Virginia man in connection with an alleged plot to carry out a series of terrorist bombings at stations in the Washington Metro system, according to a federal indictment. Farooque Ahmed, 34, of Ashburn, conspired with people he believed to be al-Qaeda operatives to attack the stations at Arlington National Cemetery, Pentagon City, Crystal City and Court House, the indictment said." * Indonesia: "The death toll from a tsunami and a volcano rose to more than 300 Wednesday as more victims of Indonesia's double disasters were found and an official said a warning system installed after a deadly ocean wave in 2004 had broken from a lack of maintenance." * I probably wouldn't characterize this as progress: "An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency or put meaningful pressure on its leaders to seek peace, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials citing the latest assessments of the war in Afghanistan." * This tragedy would be even worse without ongoing conservation efforts: "A growing number of creatures could disappear from the earth, with one-fifth of all vertebrates and as many as a third of all sharks and rays now facing the threat of extinction, according to a new survey assessing nearly 26,000 species across the globe." * No, state of Arizona, you can't require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration. * The White House hosted a discussion with representatives of LGBT organizations and senior administration officials yesterday, discussing DADT repeal. President Obama stopped in unexpectedly "to directly convey to the participants his personal commitment on this issue." * Not again: "Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, put a second and final stop on Wednesday morning to the most expensive public works project under way in the country, a proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River that could have doubled commuter-train service to Manhattan." * It pains me to see that we have to endure another phony debate about non-existent "voter fraud." * House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana might give up his leadership post in advance of a silly presidential campaign. * Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) has described President Obama as "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times." Ruth Marcus wrote today, "If Issa believes this, he is deranged. If he doesn't and is saying it anyway, he is dangerous." * Todd Lally, a Republican congressional candidate in Kentucky, hasn't personally witnessed gender discrimination, and therefore, suspects it doesn't exist. * Substance abuse within the Iraqi Security Forces is a real problem. * What happens when a college student gets a scholarship, but it's too short? * And Ralph Reed, who inexplicably feels comfortable showing his face in public, is launching campaign ads that are almost a parody of themselves. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST HEALTH CARE DIDN'T END IN MARCH.... Many proponents of health care reform, including me, hoped the Affordable Care Act would enjoy broader public support as the intense dispute faded. The ACA would become law; Americans would learn more about it; new popular benefits would kick in; and Americans would invariably begin to appreciate it more. That obviously hasn't happened, at least not yet. The numbers appeared to improve soon after President Obama signed the landmark bill into law, but in the ensuing months, support stalled and opposition inched higher. One possible reason: those who invested heavily to kill health care reform kept investing to ensure Americans' hostility for the breakthrough accomplishment.
That's right, there's been more than $100 million in anti-reform advertising "since signed the bill into law in March. And many ads on health care contain multiple falsehoods and distortions." I'm not arguing that the ACA would be wildly popular were it not for the attack campaign, but let's not forget, health care reform -- at a conceptual level -- has always been pretty popular. When President Obama first started pursuing this last year, opposition was initially very low. After all, he was elected in large part to deliver on reform after a century of trying. What changed was a coordinated destruction campaign launched by insurance companies, right-wing activists, and Republicans desperate to prevent Democrats from completing a task that has eluded policymakers since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars to crush the effort, and they very nearly succeeded. And when they came up short, they spent another $108 million to convince the public, with still more deceptions, to continue to disapprove of the effort they'd already been told not to like. Ask Americans if they like the law, they'll say no. Ask Americans if they like the provisions in the law, they'll say yes. Why is that? Because some powerful folks -- some motivated by greed, others by petty partisanship -- have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make the case that the law is somehow a bad thing. If they didn't, the law not only would be more widely appreciated, but Democrats would very likely be positioned to have a much better midterm cycle. Voters' attitudes aren't exactly for sale, but you can rent a lot of ill will for $108 million. —Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
THE GOOD OL' DAYS.... We talked briefly last week about Republicans pining for the halcyon days they remember so fondly. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) lamented not too long ago the notion that Democrats are "snuffing out the America that I grew up in" during the 1950s and 1960s. Putting aside what that era was like for women and minority groups, the striking thing about such pining is how extraordinarily liberal the country was, economically, during these good ol' days. The top marginal tax rate was 90% (nearly triple today's figure); union membership was 30% (more than quadruple today's figure); the Republican Party, which still had plenty of liberals, endorsed all kinds of progressive ideas (spending projects, living wage); and the economy was heavily regulated -- airlines didn't even set their own prices. Harold Meyerson explores this in even more detail in his column today, emphasizing conservative activists' misguided understanding of what it is they think has gone wrong.
It's important to appreciate the economic anxieties so many are experiencing. Millions of middle-class families feel put upon and helpless. They're working longer and harder, for less, and their optimism about the opportunities for future generations has all but disappeared. But the problem is that these same working folks also struggle to tell friend from foe. Too many have been convinced that "government spending" is somehow evil, despite the fact that it's this spending that often goes to benefit the middle class. They've been convinced that the Affordable Care Act that will deliver tremendous benefits to their family is awful. In short, for 30 years, people who struggling to keep their heads above water have been told not to trust life-preservers if they're paid for with public funds. For conservative activists who nod their heads when Boehner wistfully thinks back to the '50s and '60s, there's a fundamental confusion over what that means -- the era they liked is the one in which New Deal policies created "economic security and opportunity" that were "widely shared," thanks in part to high marginal top rates and wages that nearly kept pace with the cost of living. If Boehner and his allies want to go back to "the America they grew up in," we can, but it'll require a pretty sharp left-hand turn. —Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
CRIST URGES VOTERS TO REJECT 'EXTREMIST' ROAD.... In Florida's U.S. Senate race, Gov. Charlie Crist (I) has seen his fortunes fade as Democratic voters "returned home" after the party's primary, and Republicans rallied behind the state's far-right former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R). While polls showed Crist looking good in July, he now trails by double digits with less than a week to go. He has an interesting closing argument, though. In this new clip, Crist tells Floridians, "On Tuesday, you're going to choose a path for our state and nation. Down one road is extremism -- where Roe v. Wade is overturned and being a moderate is a curse. That's the road Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and Marco Rubio want to take us down. "It's a dangerous road, and the polls say I'm the only one who can stop them. So if you're sick of the extremism and the gridlock, then join our fight for common sense." You'll notice that Crist makes no mention of Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek, and it's not hard to understand why -- Meek is a distant third literally in every poll. If Crist is going to have any shot at all, he'll need Florida Democrats to think, "A vote for Meek is a vote for Rubio," which as a practical matter, may very well be the case. But it's also noteworthy to acknowledge exactly what Crist believes will resonate with independents and Democrats in Florida: no to extremism, no to Palin, no to banning reproductive rights. It stands to reason the Crist campaign's internal polling shows pretty solid numbers to bolster this case. Will it work? I kind of doubt it, but if anecdotal evidence means anything to you (it almost certainly shouldn't), just about every Democrat I know in the state is voting for Crist, in the hopes of beating Rubio. —Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
GET TO KNOW 'CUTGO'.... The "Paygo" policies of the 1990s proved to be pretty popular and effective. It's a basic idea -- in a nutshell, if policymakers want to increase spending or cut taxes, they have to figure out a way to pay for it. The point is to prevent increases to the deficit by telling officials to "pay as you go." It helped Clinton eliminate the deficit altogether and deliver some of the largest surpluses ever. Republicans of the Bush era didn't care for the policy, and quickly scrapped it. The GOP couldn't pay for massive tax breaks, or two wars, or Medicare expansion, or No Child Left Behind, but they passed them all anyway, each time just throwing the costs onto the deficit. It's how Republicans managed to add $5 trillion to the national debt in just eight years. Last year, Democrats brought Paygo back, though they waived it for emergency spending. When Dems took up health care reform, for example, they made sure it was paid for. Indeed, all of the major Democratic initiatives considered in this Congress, other than the Recovery Act, were careful not to add to the deficit at all. (When Senate Dems voted to bring back Paygo, literally all of the Republicans balked -- including the Republicans who claimed to support it.) With Republicans apparently poised to regain power -- ironically while talking about fiscal responsibility -- the GOP is once again poised to scrap Paygo, but Boehner & Co. intend to replace it. The new plan is to go with something called "Cutgo." And what's Cutgo all about? Instead of paying for new initiatives as they're considered, Republicans want to cut existing spending to offset the costs of any new spending. If this sounds dubious to you, there's a good reason. Jon Chait explains:
Right. This is precisely the kind of shell game one expects from politicians who don't take policy or fiscal responsibility seriously. Republicans don't like the idea of "paying for" policies, because that opens the door to all kinds of possibilities. If they want trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, for example, Paygo ties their hands, since they can't find trillions of dollars in spending cuts to make up the difference. Indeed, some crazy people, drunk on communist wine, might even try to pay for new programs by, say, closing tax loopholes. Worse, they might go so far as to raise a tax on someone by some amount at some point, in order to help deal with the budget mess Republicans created through 2008. And since that's wholly unacceptable on its face, Boehner & Co. prefer "Cutgo," precisely because it limits options. If policymakers are going to make new investments, they're going to have to cut -- and only cut -- somewhere else. Republicans exist, in other words, to (a) cut taxes; and (b) prevent tax increases. It's a shallow, destructive charade, but that probably won't matter on Tuesday. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
SHINING A LIGHT ON MCCONNELL'S SHORT-TERM THINKING.... It was a bit of a delayed reaction, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) remarks to National Journal about his plans for next year are becoming increasingly interesting in Democratic circles. If you're just joining us, McConnell noted the strategy he has in mind for 2011 and 2012. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," McConnell said, adding, "Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs spoke about this at some length during a briefing yesterday, and the Democratic National Committee released this video today. Just to clarify, it's worth emphasizing that the clip isn't going to be aired on television -- it's 47 seconds, not 30 -- though the DNC no doubt hopes it makes the rounds online. Greg Sargent has a worthwhile take on this, questioning whether the issue really moves the needle, and noting that McConnell and his party just don't seem to care about how such sentiments are perceived: "[I]f anything, what's really interesting here is that McConnell sees no need whatsoever to even disguise his real aims, and never really has." That's clearly true. But I think it's worthwhile for Democrats to incorporate this into the party's message anyway, for a few reasons. The first is that it might have a marginal effect on the Democratic base, which has frequently been infuriated by Republican obstructionism, and which may not like to hear McConnell boast that his agenda involves destroying the president next year. The second has to do with so-called, self-identified "independents," who claim to like the idea of Dems and Republicans cooperating and working together. With McConnell and other Republicans already declaring -- in public and on the record -- they have no intention of doing anything of the sort, it might matter to some of these voters that a vote for the GOP is a vote for intensified partisan strife. Ultimately, though, the key angle here is laying the groundwork for future debates. The next Congress, if the midterms go as expected, will be very ugly, and Americans are likely to ask why policymakers can't get anything done. The race will be on for each side to blame the other. Since Republicans really will be responsible -- they're the ones already bragging about their unwillingness to compromise -- it makes sense for Dems to hammer the point now. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
'THIS IS THE WORLD THAT FOX NEWS HAS CREATED'.... If you missed "The Rachel Maddow Show" reporting from Alaska last night, the episode was chock full of interesting content. There was one fairly brief segment, however, that stood out for me. Rachel chatted with some Joe Miller supporters campaigning on a street corner, but before she could walk away, the activists wanted to emphasize that they resent Sen. Lisa Murkowski for being one of 19 Republicans to vote to confirm Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General. Rachel asked why that was a bad thing. That's when it got amusing. One young man insisted that Holder is "the most anti-gun attorney general this nation has ever had." When Rachel asked how he arrived at this, he had absolutely no idea why he believes what he believes. He referenced Holder's "voting record beforehand," which made no sense, since Holder has never held elected office. Asked what it was, exactly, that Holder did on gun policy he didn't like, the Miller supporter -- who, remember, feels so strongly about this issue that he brought it up -- replied, "I, uh, I honestly, uh, I don't know enough about him to answer that truthfully." So, Rachel moved to the next voter who's mad about Holder, and who also brought up the subject. "He's anti-gun," the woman said. Asked what he'd done that's anti-gun, the Miller support replied, "I don't have all the facts, but I know that he is." Paul Waldman noted, "Keep in mind that these are folks who are so mad about this particular issue, and so fervent in their defense of their Second Amendment rights, that they're out on a corner talking to people about it." In the same segment, a third Miller supporter insisted Holder was bad because of "the voter intimidation with the Black Panthers." That voter later argued that members of the New Black Panther Party -- which the Bush administration saw as too meaningless to pursue -- aren't being prosecuted because they're black. This is one of the reasons she's voting for Joe Miller. "This is the world that Fox News has created," Rachel concluded. Ignorance spreads like a cancer, and right about now, it's making our body politic pretty sick. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * In Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, the closely-watched contest is either getting more competitive or less, depending on which poll you believe. The new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Joe Sestak (D) and Pat Toomey (R) tied at 46% each. But a new Franklin and Marshall poll shows Toomey up by seven, 43% to 36%. * In California's U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading Carly Fiorina (R), 52% to 43%. A Suffolk University poll found the identical result. * Fiorina was forced off the campaign trail yesterday, having to be hospitalized in Los Angeles with an infection stemming from reconstructive breast surgery. * And speaking of California, the Suffolk poll also shows Jerry Brown (D) leading in the state's gubernatorial race, 50% to 42%. * In Minnesota's gubernatorial race, the latest St. Cloud State University poll shows former Sen. Mark Dayton (D) up by 10 over Tom Emmer (R), 40% to 30%. Independence Party nominee Tom Horner is a competitive third with 19%. * Salon lists the "10 most terrifying would-be congressmen." That's a fair description; it's a scary list. * In * Any hopes of Dems keeping Evan Bayh's Senate seat in Indiana are long gone. The latest EPIC/MRA poll shows corporate lobbyist Dan Coats (R) leading Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), 53% to 35%. * And in Hawaii's gubernatorial race, a Honolulu Star-Advertiser poll shows former Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) up by eight over Duke Aiona (R), 51% to 43%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
QUANTIFYING ELITISM.... Following up on Charles Murray's odd piece on "elitism," Claire Berlinski created the "How Plebe Are You?" test. Kevin Drum suggest this "deserves meme-dom," and I'm inclined to agree. Here's how I did: 1. Can you talk about "Mad Men?" I can and I do. 2. Can you talk about the "The Sopranos?" Yes, in great detail. 3. Do you know who replaced Bob Barker on "The Price Is Right?" Oddly enough, yes, but I haven't seen the show since I was a kid. 4. Have you watched an Oprah show from beginning to end? Yes, but it's been a long while. 5. Can you hold forth animatedly about yoga? Not a chance. 6. How about pilates? I've heard the word, but I'm not entirely sure what pilates even are. 7. How about skiing? I like skiing, but can I "hold forth animatedly" on the subject? Sort of. 8. Mountain biking? Not even a little. 9. Do you know who Jimmie Johnson is? I do, but NASCAR isn't for me. 10. Does the acronym MMA mean anything to you? I know what it is and what it stands for, but I've never watched it. 11. Can you talk about books endlessly? Sure. 12. Have you ever read a "Left Behind" novel? No, but I can tell you quite a bit about how looney one of its authors is. 13. How about a Harlequin romance? Nope. 14. Do you take interesting vacations? I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this word "vacation." Put me down for a "no." 15. Do you know a great backpacking spot in the Sierra Nevada? I don't even know of any awful backpacking spots in the Sierra Nevada. No. 16. What about an exquisite B&B; overlooking Boothbay Harbor? I hear it's a lovely area, but no. 17. Would you be caught dead in an RV? I'm not philosophically opposed to being in an RV, but I have no experience with them. 18. Would you be caught dead on a cruise ship? If I didn't get brutally sea sick before even leaving the dock, sure. 19. Have you ever heard of Branson, Mo? Of course, though I haven't personally been there. 20. Have you ever attended a meeting of a Kiwanis Club? Nope. 21. How about the Rotary Club? Nope. 22. Have you lived for at least a year in a small town? Depending on how one defines "small town," absolutely. 23. Have you lived for a year in an urban neighborhood in which most of your neighbors did not have college degrees? I've never thought to ask, but I'm guessing no. 24. Have you spent at least a year with a family income less than twice the poverty line? Actually, yes, though it's been a while. 25. Do you have a close friend who is an evangelical Christian? I have a limited number of people I consider "close friends," but if we expand it to mean people I talk to on a regular basis, sure. 26. Have you ever visited a factory floor? Yes. 27. Have you worked on one? No. I'm not sure if that makes me an "elitist," but that's my record. —Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
GIBBS BLASTS MCCONNELL'S PARTISAN VOW.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) concession in an interview with National Journal that he already has a strategy in mind for 2011 and 2012. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," McConnell said, adding, "Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful." It was quite a concession. In the near future, the Senate Republican strategy, based on McConnell's own remarks, will be built around destroying the president, not solving problems. Joe Scarborough characterized McConnell's comments as "embarrassing" and "pathetic," while Chris Hayes noted that the McConnell quote "should be dominating the news cycle." Alas, political reporters have largely ignored the remarks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to elevate the story yesterday during a briefing, telling reporters "it's a deeply disappointing message that regardless of the outcome of this election, political gridlock and political gamesmanship is what the American people have to look forward to over the next two years."
Watch for this to be a central message in the coming months. If Americans choose gridlock and partisan strife on Tuesday, as seems likely, those same voters will wonder why policymakers can't get anything done in the next Congress. Party leaders will be going to great lengths to insist their rivals are to blame. The challenge for Republicans will be avoiding responsibility after already having boasted that they have no intention of compromising with anyone about anything. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
MAYBE SHE SMUDGED HIS SHOE?.... After Ginni Thomas left that creepy voicemail for Anita Hill, it's made for some amusing mockery online. In the jokes, victims are supposed to be the ones apologizing -- Muslims should tell Juan Williams they're sorry; underage pages should apologize to Mark Foley, etc. Brian Beutler, who's had more than a few of these, joked yesterday, "Hey, MoveOn activist? It's that Rand Paul fan here. The one with the size 13s? I'm just calling to see if perhaps you're ready to apologize." Let's not forget how exceedingly difficult it is to take satirical shots at conservatives, given how farcical real-life is.
Just so we're absolutely clear, the guy who stomped on a defenseless woman's head wants her to apologize to him. Maybe she smudged his shoe or something. —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
ANNOYING BOTH SIDES OF AN EQUALITY DEBATE SIMULTANEOUSLY.... We learned this week that President Obama, after less than two years in office, has already "appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in history." By one estimate, there are now more than 150 officials -- "from agency heads and commission members to policy officials and senior staffers" -- in the administration, easily surpassing the 140 officials spanning eight years of the Clinton administration. Not surprisingly, the religious right isn't happy about this. The Christian Broadcasting Network ran an item yesterday:
The far-right Alliance Defense Fund isn't happy, either. I feel like this keeps coming up, and it's fascinating to watch. To the far-right opponents of gay rights, President Obama is a disaster, advancing LGBT equality in ways conservatives have feared for years. At the exact same time, progressive supporters of gay rights are also convinced that President Obama is a disaster, failing to advance LGBT equality in ways they'd expected. For the right, Obama is so supportive of the LGBT community, he's literally labeled "our first gay president." For the left, the very idea seems ridiculous. As the debate continues, it's probably worth emphasizing some noteworthy accomplishments. The administration, in addition to hiring more openly gay officials than any administration in history, has made a variety of advances, including hospital visitation rights, a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, lifting the travel/immigration ban on those with HIV/AIDS, expanded hate-crime laws, addressing the diplomatic passport issue, ordering the Federal Housing Authority to no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants on loans, expanding the Census to include the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship, endorsing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, and making the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act law. There have also been more symbolic gestures, including the White House hosting an event to honor the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, announcing the first-ever transgender presidential appointee, honoring same-sex couples in his Mother's Day and Father's Day proclamations, recording a video for the "It Gets Better" Project, and hosting Gay and Lesbian Pride Month events at the White House. Nevertheless, a sizable number of LGBT voters are prepared to stay home on Election Day or vote against Democrats, unsatisfied with the pace of change. The religious right, incensed by how pro-gay Dems have been, no doubt finds this inexplicable. —Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
NO WONDER MILLER WANTS TO AVOID HIS RECORD.... Just two weeks ago, Alaska's extremist Senate candidate, Joe Miller (R), announced that his background would be off limits for the rest of the campaign. He was willing to talk about all the things he'd do in the Senate -- oppose the minimum wage, oppose unemployment aid, oppose Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- without all these pesky questions about his skills, background, qualifications, and professional history. It turns out, Miller wasn't just being obsessive about privacy. He didn't want to talk about his background because it happens to be pretty embarrassing. The headline in the Anchorage Daily News reads this morning, for example, "Miller admits to lies about his actions."
After his dishonesty and ethical lapse was discovered, Miller was suspended and reprimanded. Facing likely dismissal from the job, he abruptly resigned. Sen. Lisa Murkowski's statement on this happens to be accurate: "The bottom line is Joe cheated, he lied, tried to cover it up, lied again, then finally got caught and had to admit it, just as he lied to Alaskans when he initially denied any problems with his employment at the Borough, claiming his record was 'exceptional' and 'second to none.'" These revelations come a week after another report on Miller's three-year tenure at a top Anchorage law firm. His supervisor at the firm was limited by the firm's personnel policies and wouldn't go into specifics*, but he conceded last week, "We at this firm were not eager to have him stay, and so when he announced he was leaving, we were relieved." Looking back, Miller hasn't held that many positions in Alaska since moving to the state, and those jobs he held didn't go well at all. That this guy, largely unknown to voters up until very recently, is poised to win a U.S. Senate seat is more than a little bizarre. Miller's pitch to voters is, in effect, "Never mind my background, never mind my qualifications, never mind my record, never mind my inexperience, never mind my record of professional misconduct, and never mind my scandalous campaign tactics. Vote for me anyway, because I'm really right-wing." * edited for clarity —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
THE KENTUCKY STOMPER'S RIDICULOUS EXCUSE.... Following up on yesterday's reports, Tim Profitt, a former coordinator for extremist Senate candidate Rand Paul's (R) campaign, fully admits that he was the one who stepped on a defenseless woman's head Monday night. But Profitt spoke to the CBS affiliate in Lexington late yesterday, and said "his actions were misunderstood."
He added, "All I was trying to do was hold her until police could get her." I realize Profitt's in a rough spot right now. He's facing an assault charge; the Paul campaign wants nothing to do with him; and much of the country has seen him stomping on a young woman's head, putting her in the hospital with a concussion. It's the kind of situation that might lead someone to spin desperately, coming with any kind of rationale, however implausible. But suggesting he was trying to restrain Lauren Valle with his foot quite literally adds insult to injury. The explanation is so patently absurd on its face, it's impossible to believe anyone could take it seriously. Valle had already been wrestled to the ground, and was being restrained by other large men. Profitt would have us believe he thought she might get away, which necessitated briefly but forcefully stepping on her head as she laid defenseless on pavement? I'm not an attorney, but if I were advising this guy, I might suggest some other kind of explanation when he gets to court. And should this be a civil case someday, here's guessing a jury wouldn't buy this, either. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
WHO'S RIGHT ON BIOFUELS?.... How can America achieve energy independence? The Obama Administration believes increased production of biofuels is key, as most recently signaled by its decision to increase the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline. Yet critics warn that biofuels produced from corn and other crops damage the environment and drive up the cost of food. Who's right? In the current issue of The Washington Monthly, two authors square off on the question. The first is retired four-star general and former Supreme Allied Commander, Wesley K. Clark., who argues that the U.S. should commit to biofuels as fully as Brazil has done for decades. Today's major automakers produce cars for the Brazilian market that run just fine even on pure ethanol, thus saving billions on the nation's oil bill. Clark also points out that the efficiency of ethanol production has improved dramatically in recent years. According to a study released in June by the USDA, modern U.S. ethanol plants produce about 2.3 times more energy than they consume, including the energy required for planting, cultivating, fertilizing, and harvesting the corn from which most of ethanol is currently made in the U.S. Yet what would be the consequences for the environment, and for the price of food, of increased biofuel production? Heather Rogers, author of Green Gone Wrong: How Our Economy is Undermining the Environmental Revolution, argues that the heavy use of synthetic chemicals to grow vast mono-cultures of corn and other grains are already straining the environment and wearing out the fertility of the soil. She also warns against putting much faith in the promise that we will soon be able to produce large amounts of biofuels from algae, switch grass, or other biological materials that are not part of the human food chain. The case for ethanol, she argues is instead purely political: subsidizing ethanol favors farm state interests whose votes are crucial, whether for winning the Iowa caucuses or passing legislation in the U.S. Senate. Yet by adjusting agricultural subsidies to favor more sustainable forms of production, farmers could again become the stewards of the land most want to be, while also bringing deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Compensating farmers for sustainable agricultural practices would blunt the growing political power of the biofuel lobby, she argues, and put America on track to develop energy policies based on conservation and the development of truly green technologies. To read Clark's piece "Bringing it All Back Home" click here. To read Rogers' piece "Against the Grain" click here. —Steve Benen 7:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
October 26, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * I really am glad President Obama rescued the American automotive industry: "The Ford Motor Company said on Tuesday that it earned $1.7 billion in the third quarter and that it expected to have zero net debt by the end of December, one year ahead of forecast. It was the sixth consecutive profitable quarter and the best third quarter in more than 20 years for Ford." * On a related note, the administration has unveiled new rules to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants by requiring greater fuel efficiency for big trucks, buses and other heavy-duty vehicles starting with 2014 models." Look for more regulatory moves like this in 2011 and 2012, after Congress completely loses the ability to act. * I'm starting to think some folks consider Voting While Brown to be illegal: "Tea Party members have started challenging voter registration applications and have announced plans to question individual voters at the polls whom they suspect of being ineligible. In response, liberal groups and voting rights advocates are sounding an alarm, claiming that such strategies are scare tactics intended to suppress minority and poor voters." * Given the larger context, this may not generate as much praise as it probably deserves: "Less than halfway through his first term, President Barack Obama has appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in history. Gay activists say the estimate of more than 150 appointments so far -- from agency heads and commission members to policy officials and senior staffers -- surpasses the previous high of about 140 reached during two full terms under President Bill Clinton." * First Lady Michelle Obama is working with OFA to encourage folks to take advantage of early voting. * Congress still hasn't taken care of that Pell Grant problem that's been building up since the summer. * I really do wish I knew whether it's all right to keep my cell phone in my pocket. * Interesting-but-polite confrontation yesterday between a Fox News crew and Wisconsin Democrats. * Right-wing hate blogger Pamela Geller has a plan to profit handsomely from bigotry. * Based on the perspective of a woman who knew him pretty well, Clarence Thomas seems like a strange, scary man. * From time to time, I genuinely struggle to understand how Richard Cohen's mind works. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
DETAILS OF ASSAULT IN KENTUCKY COME TOGETHER.... Over the last few hours, we've learned quite a bit about the incident in Lexington last night, in which supporters of Senate candidate Rand Paul (R) grabbed a MoveOn activist, forced her to the ground, and at one point, literally stomped on her head as she lay helpless on the curb. First, the victim, Lauren Valle, was diagnosed at the hospital with a concussion and a sprained arm and shoulder. She is, not surprisingly, pressing charges in the wake of the incident. Second, multiple reports indicate we now also know who stomped on Valle's head.
Third, Valle spoke to a handful of reporters this afternoon, and explained that she'd been to several other campaign events in Kentucky through her work with MoveOn.org, and that the Paul campaign knows her and expressed their "distaste" for her work. Given this, Valle believes the assault was "premeditated." "What happened last night was that about five minutes before Rand Paul's car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex, who was with me," Valle said this afternoon. "They surrounded me. There was five of them. They motioned to each other and got behind me. My partner Alex heard them say 'We are here to do crowd control we might have to take someone out.'" She added that the video we've all seen doesn't show the fact that she tried to get away from her attackers. As for how Valle was able to talk to the media after the incident, without showing signs of injury, she explained that she felt the full brunt of the pain as it hit her later. "I was in severe shock," she said, adding that the pain in her head started in earnest "an hour and a half afterwards." As for Paul, who tried to blame "crowd control" and "both sides" this morning on Fox News, the extremist ophthalmologist issued another statement this afternoon, explaining that the campaign "condemns the actions" of its supporter. Why it took so long for Paul's team to say this is unclear. What's next? As of a few minutes ago, the Lexington police has served Profitt with a criminal summons for his assault. —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
AN OLD, DISCREDITED TALKING POINT MAKES A COMEBACK.... Last year, as the debate over health care reform intensified, Republicans not only turned on the individual-mandate idea that they'd come up with, they also desperately tried to make it as scary as possible. That meant repeating one message over and over again: if you don't get insurance, the government will put you in jail. In fact, this was a major part of the offensive for a while. Glenn Beck told Fox News' audience that "there will be jail time" for those who refuse to participate in the health care system. Dick Morris said the same thing, arguing, "One of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance." A year ago, a "Fox & Friends" on-screen graphic during told viewers during a segment on the health care debate, "Comply or go to jail." The argument didn't really go anywhere, and for the most part, Republicans moved on to other attacks. By April, Bill O'Reilly pretended the entire argument never happened, insisting, "[Y]ou don't know anybody on Fox News -- because there hasn't been anyone -- that said people will go to jail if they don't buy mandatory insurance... [W]e researched to find out if anybody had ever said you are going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody has ever said it." (He was blatantly lying.) Unfortunately, the nonsense is back. A shadowy far-right outfit called American Action Network is attacking Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in a new ad for supporting a health care law that means, among other things, "jail time for anyone without coverage." That's the bad news. The good news, as Greg Sargent reports today, is that a Connecticut station will not run the deceptive spot.
It's always heartening when this happens. I've long believed ads would be less deceptive if stations refused to air spots that could be proven false. What's more, as Greg keeps reminding us, the larger point is that these shadowy organizations aren't just trying to sway elections with secret money, they're doing so with ads intended to mislead the public. Postscript: For the record, in case there's any lingering confusion, those who refuse to buy insurance would be subjected to a fine, but the law specifies that "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution." The American Action Network simply intended to lie and hope voters wouldn't know the difference. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
LINCOLN BLAMES HALTER.... Of the sure-fire pickups for Senate Republicans, only one seat is held by a Democratic incumbent. That, of course, would be Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln (D), who's definitely going to lose. At this point, Lincoln is no doubt aware of her fate, and has already begun offering explanations for her political downfall. One in particular appears to be her favorite.
I suppose it's only human nature to start coming up with rationales for failure, but this really isn't compelling. In January, several weeks before Halter stated his intentions, Public Policy Polling showed Lincoln trailing Boozman by 23 points, 56% to 33%. As a rule, when an incumbent falls below 50%, it's a sign of potential trouble -- and Lincoln barely topped 30%. I suspect Lincoln would respond that her campaign could have closed the gap over the course of the year if it weren't for the Halter distraction. That strikes me as backwards -- when a scandal-free incumbent enters an election year trailing by 23 points, it's evidence that the party primary probably should have gone the other way. Lincoln's fate seemed entirely obvious all year. Would Halter have done better? It's impossible to say for sure, obviously, but he's bound to have been in a better position right now than the incumbent. For what it's worth, I was re-reading some general advice I recommended Lincoln consider a year ago, and I still think it was the better option. As Arkansas has moved sharply to the right in recent years, Lincoln didn't stand a chance aiming for some amorphous middle (to the right of her party, to the left of Republicans). I suggested last November that Lincoln give ambitious populism a shot, positioning herself as a Kennedy-like guardian of those suffering under the status quo. Arkansas has a high percentage of low-income families, struggling to get by. They'll never vote Democratic on cultural and/or social issues, but they're open to the Democratic message on economic policy -- looking out for working families' interests. A candidate who positioned herself as a populist people's champion had a better shot than an apologetic Democrat who hopes Republicans won't mind her party affiliation. Lincoln chose a more predictable course, and now she's going to lose. —Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
IDEOLOGICAL LITMUS TESTS FOR FUTURE HILL STAFFERS.... There are no doubt legions of far-right activists looking forward to applying for new Capitol Hill positions. No matter what happens in the midterms, there will be jobs to be filled, and if there's a GOP majority in the House, Republicans will have a lot of openings to fill with eager young ideologues. And in preparation for these employment opportunities, the House Republican Study Committee is asking would-be employees who want to work for one of its members to check in with a couple of websites first.
For the record, I'm not especially interested in seeking employment with a member of the House Republican Study Committee, but I was curious what these applicants might be asked before being considered for positions on Capitol Hill. So I stopped by the Heritage questionnaire that Republicans are encouraging potential staffers to fill out. The "correct" answers seemed pretty obvious. Agree or disagree: "The U.N. should not have authority over the citizens or public policies of sovereign nations." Agree or disagree: "The U.S. has the right to use force to protect its national interests." Agree or disagree: "Judges should not make decisions based on their policy preferences." I especially liked the next section in which applicants were presented a list of people and organizations, and asked to express general agreement or disagreement. The list includes Al Gore, the NRA, CATO, the National Organization of Women*, George W. Bush, Clarence Thomas, James Dobson, Bill Bennett, and for some reason, Dianne Feinstein. The Leadership Institute's questionnaire, meanwhile, wants to know, among other things, if you think "homosexual activity should be incompatible with service in the U.S. military forces," and whether "minimum wage laws contribute to unemployment." There was no explicit demands made by the House Republican Study Committee, but it's probably a safe bet that those with the "wrong" answers won't be eligible for employment. The next Congress really isn't going to be a pleasant experience. * Update: NOW, of course, stands for National Organization for Women, not National Organization of Women. The mistake was the Heritage Foundation's, not mine. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
THE WAR ON THE CHURCH-STATE WALL.... Republican candidates' antipathy for constitutional principles has been on display quite a bit lately, but ThinkProgress flags another gem this morning, highlighting extremist Senate candidate Ken Buck's (R) approach to church-state separation.
The comments, made in Colorado late last year, are remarkably dumb, and the argument that President Obama re-named a Christmas tree is demonstrably false. Either Buck was lying, or was popping off on a subject he knew nothing about. Of course, if this sounds familiar, it's because we've seen and heard quite a few attacks these First Amendment principles lately. Delaware's Christine O'Donnell recently humiliated herself during a debate by rejecting the separation of church state as a constitutional principle, and Nevada's Sharron Angle recently made very similar remarks. Last week, Rush Limbaugh denounced the very idea of church-state separation, and in April, former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) rejected any notion that "God should be separated from the state." I just wrote up a lengthy item on the history here a few days ago, so I won't re-hash it again. Needless to say, the separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of the American system of government, and the foundation for the greatest experiment in religious liberty the world has ever known. But putting aside the fact that these unhinged Republicans simply have no idea what they're talking about, I have a related concern: what is it, exactly, they'd replace church-state separation with? What we're seeing is, to a certain extent, the rise of the Taliban wing of the Republican Party -- the Taliban rails against secularism, and insists that the law must mirror and be based on their interpretation of a religious text. Buck, O'Donnell, Angle, Limbaugh, and Palin have all argued something eerily similar. Thomas Jefferson said the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between church and state," and these Republicans are anxious to tear it down. Let's say, for the sake of conversation, they succeed. What then? Once the foundation for religious liberty in America is gone, what does Ken Buck suggest we replace it with? There are some countries that endorse Buck's worldview and intermix God and government -- Iran and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -- but they're generally not countries the United States tries to emulate. So what do Buck and his ilk have in store for us? A European-style official church? A theocracy along the lines of Saudi Arabia? Are conservatives who want the government to shrink also telling us they want the state to play a larger role in promoting and "helping" religious institutions? When the right denounces the American principles that have made us great, they stop being merely wrong, and start becoming even more dangerous. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (72)
THE PERILOUS FATE OF IMMIGRATION REFORM.... In the abstract, when thinking about the kinds of key issues where compromise is possible in 2011 and 2012, immigration reform looks like a compelling option. President Obama's approach is largely in line with the Bush/Cheney policy, and it's not ridiculous to think some kind of deal could be reached with some Senate Republicans. So, why does everyone assume an immigration reform package is doomed? Because House Republicans are an extreme bunch.
It's unrealistic to think of voters making choices on such a meta/strategic level, but by electing a Republican House majority, Americans would put some real radicals in key positions of authority. This is especially true on immigration. Steven King is easily one of the craziest people to serve in Congress in my lifetime, and any immigration bill would start in a subcommittee he'd chair.
I've seen a few pieces lately suggesting the lawmaking process won't necessarily be a trainwreck in the event of a Republican-led House, and it's still possible worthwhile bills might pass. Under the circumstances, and with GOP figures publicly vowing to deliver gridlock and increased partisan strife, optimism is in short supply. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * Though some recent polling showed a more competitive U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rand Paul (R) leading Jack Conway (D) by an even greater margin, 53% to 40%. * In Ohio's gubernatorial race, John Kasich (R) refused to participate in an NPR debate yesterday after learning, 15 minutes beforehand, that listeners would be able to submit questions. Nevertheless, a Quinnipiac poll released this morning shows Kasich leading Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 49% to 43%, * In Colorado's U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Ken Buck (R) tied at 47% each. PPP also has John Hickenlooper (D) leading in Colorado's gubernatorial race, but only by three points over former Rep. Tom Tancredo (I), 47% to 44%. * In West Virginia's U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Gov. Joe Manchin (D) with a slightly larger lead over John Raese (R), 50% to 44%. * In Alaska's U.S. Senate race, Joe Miller (R) has admitted to an ethics violation during his limited tenure with the Fairbanks North Star Borough. * In Nevada's U.S. Senate race, Sharron Angle (R) has now resorted to using decoys to hide from journalists. * Some may think the U.S. Senate race in California is effectively over, but Republicans clearly don't think so -- the National Republican Senatorial Committee will run $3 million in television ads in California this week. * In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Richard Blumenthal (D) leading Linda McMahon (R), 54% to 42%, The same poll shows Dan Malloy (D) leading Tom Foley (R) in the gubernatorial race, 48% to 43%. * In Illinois' gubernatorial race, a new poll from the Chicago Tribune shows Bill Brady (R) with a narrow lead over Gov. Pat Quinn (D), 43% to 39%. * And in Arizona, a new PPP poll for Daily Kos shows Gov. Jan Brewer (R) shaking off a horrific debate performance and rumors about her poor health, and leading Terry Goddard (D) by eight, 52% to 44%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
CONDEMNING VIOLENCE SHOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT.... We talked earlier about the pre-debate assault in Kentucky last night, in which Rand Paul (R) supporters grabbed a MoveOn activist, forced her to the ground, and at one point, literally stomped on her head as she lay helpless on the curb. This morning, Paul apparently felt compelled to address the incident, so he did what Republicans always do: he scurried to Fox News. Here's what the right-wing ophthalmologist had to say about the incident:
I don't mean to sound picky, but a defenseless woman was stomped on the head by Rand Paul supporters, and wound up in the hospital. I was hoping Paul would have the decency to use words like "condemn" and "denounce." Maybe he could give her a call to see how she's doing. Instead, he sought comfort on a Republican news network -- where Paul knew he wouldn't be pressed for a stronger statement or face follow-up questions -- and talked about "both sides" being worked up, and his dissatisfaction with "crowd control." Here's a hypothetical: if large, male union members had grabbed a young woman who worked with Tea Partiers, dragged her to the ground, and literally stepped on her head, would Rand Paul be on Fox News saying "it wasn't something that I liked," or might his response be a little stronger? —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
TAKING A JACKHAMMER TO THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION.... When coming to terms with the radicalism of the contemporary Republican agenda, it's convenient to turn to the right's approach to the Constitution. This year, we've seen a growing number of prominent Republican officials and candidates talk about scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment, and proposing dozens of new amendments. But this isn't just a question of what they want to do to the Constitution; it's the consequences of how they interpret the Constitution. Brian Beutler had an interesting item this morning.
Quite right. We're not just talking about far-right candidates who disapprove of some of the bedrocks of modern American life; we're talking about far-right candidates who believe these bedrocks are unconstitutional and shouldn't exist. Brian's list notes that Social Security and Medicare would have to be scrapped. As far as several GOP candidates are concerned, the minimum wage and unemployment benefits would necessarily meet the same fate. Some, including Nevada's Sharron Angle, would also eliminate American participation in the United Nations on constitutional grounds, and in the case of Kentucky's Rand Paul, the Civil Rights Act isn't legally sound, either. I have to wonder if the electorate fully appreciates what's become of Republicans' ideology in recent years. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
IT'S LIKE RA-I-AIN ON YOUR ELECTION DAY.... The lead story from The Hill this morning strikes me as a little silly. There may be some merit to the underlying point, but forecasting nationwide weather conditions a week ahead of time is probably a mistake.
When I saw the headline, talking about "rain in the forecast" for Democrats, I assumed it was metaphorical. But in this case, we're talking about literal rain. It's certainly possible that bad weather could give the GOP an added edge in some areas, but (a) it's tough to predict the weather a week in advance; and (b) it's even tougher to forecast rain in "the Midwest, Southeast and Northeast regions," which happens to cover most of a pretty large country. Postscript: If you have no idea what the headline is in reference to, ask Alanis Morissette. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
ARE WE REALLY GOING TO HAVE THE WMD DEBATE AGAIN?.... It's been nearly eight years since the Bush/Cheney administration launched its spectacularly misguided invasion of Iraq, and certain truths are unavoidable. Near the top of the list: U.S. officials said Saddam Hussein's regime had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and quite possibly a nuclear program. None of this was true. And yet, that's not what "Fox & Friends" viewers were told yesterday. Steve Doocy insisted, "It turns out President George W. Bush was right about Saddam Hussein hiding weapons of mass destruction.... Bush was right; they had 'em." Later in the show, Gretchen Carlson said nearly the exact same thing. Sigh. It's hard to know whether to be annoyed or sad that Republicans are still trying to win the long-completed debate over WMD. Either way, in case anyone is wondering if Fox News might be right, Media Matters sets the record straight: "Right-wing media figures have seized on a Wired article about the classified Iraq war documents recently released by WikiLeaks.com to desperately claim "Bush was right" that Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In fact, the Wired article reported the documents did not 'reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime,' but rather remnants of the stockpiles largely destroyed during the Gulf War." The Wired article is online here. The cast of "Fox & Friends" may want to read it before offering an on-air correction, which should happen right around the time Brian Kilmeade rides onto the set on a unicorn. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
I'M SURE THEY LOOK ASIAN TO HER.... In Nevada's U.S. Senate, extremist candidate Sharron Angle's (R) use of racism for political gain bas been appalling. This week, it managed to get worse. The Angle campaign had been airing a racist, deceptive ad, relying on images of young Latino men as part of a divisive attempt to scare white people. When asked about it, Angle told a Hispanic students' group that she's "not sure" the Mexicans in her ad are, in fact, Latino, and went on to argue that her seemingly-racist commercial is intended to raise fears about the Canadian border. Angle added that some Hispanic teenagers look "a little more Asian" to her. If there was any hope the humiliating questions might force Angle down a less-racist path, those hopes were dashed yesterday with the release of her new ad -- which actually manages to make matters worse. In this odious new spot, Angle bombards viewers with images of young Latino men, all of whom are shown as criminals. They're contrasted with white people, all of whom are shown as potential victims. For good measure, Angle throws in pictures of a U.S./Mexico border crossing and the president of Mexico. There were no Canadians included in the commercial. Please tell us again, Sharron, about how you're "not sure" about whether the Mexicans in your ad are, in fact, Latino. This is political messaging at its worst. Sharron Angle is well past the point of feeling shame, and she'll clearly do anything to win, no matter how vile, but it's worth appreciating how odious this is. The point is as subtle as a sledgehammer -- white Nevadans are supposed to fear and hate Latinos, and then channel that revulsion into voting for her borderline-unstable political campaign. It's a strategy premised on dividing people, and pitting Nevadans against one another, all in the hopes of convincing voters to overlook the fact that Sharron Angle appears to be stark raving mad. I don't know if Angle will win next week, though recent polls show her in the lead. I do know that the way she's chosen to conduct herself in this campaign is a disgrace and a national embarrassment. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
RAND PAUL SUPPORTERS ATTACK MOVEON ACTIVIST IN KENTUCKY.... The heated U.S. Senate race in Kentucky has already proven itself to be one of the uglier contests of the year, but conditions took a turn towards violence last night in Lexington. As far-right ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) arrived for the candidates' final debate, Lauren Valle of MoveOn.org tried to give him a satirical "employee of the month award" from Republicorp, a pseudo-entity created by MoveOn to draw attention to the merger of the GOP and corporate interests. But before Valle could reach the candidate, Paul supporters grabbed her, forced her to the ground, and at one point, literally stomped on her head as she lay helpless on the curb. There was apparently some talk from Paul backers that the woman simply fell. The video shows otherwise. Valle did not initially appear to be seriously injured in the attack -- she spoke to reporters after having been assaulted, complaining of headaches -- but last night, Valle was in a local hospital. Her condition has not yet been reported this morning. We also do not yet know who stomped on her head, though local police are investigating. I'd like to think this goes without saying, but apparently that's not the case: politically-motivated violence is unacceptable. Large men attacking a defenseless woman and stomping on her head is unacceptable. I know passions are running high and the right-wing Republican base has been whipped into a frenzy, but under no circumstances can we tolerate such misconduct. It's possible Paul's supporters saw Valle as some sort of threat, which is why they tried to prevent her from reaching the candidate. That's fine. On the video, we can even hear one of these supporters suggest calling the police. That's fine, too. But once these thugs reached the curb-stomping phase, it was simply out of control. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)
October 25, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * As if Haiti weren't struggling enough, it's now dealing with a cholera epidemic, which has killed more than 250 people so far. * A step in the right direction on real estate, but dangers loom: "Sales of previously occupied homes are bouncing back from their anemic levels last summer, but the gains may not be sustainable if the abrupt halt in foreclosures in some states drags out and pulls down future sales." * Try to contain your shock: "Afghan President Hamid Karzai admitted at a press conference Monday that his office accepts 'bags of money' from the Iranian government." * The White House tries circumventing Beijing: "In a shift from its assiduous one-on-one courtship of Beijing, the administration is trying to line up coalitions -- among China's next-door neighbors and far-flung trading partners -- to present Chinese leaders with a unified front on thorny issues like the currency and its territorial claims in the South China Sea." * If you missed it over the weekend, a WikiLeaks document dump advanced questions about the stability of Iraq. * President Obama clearly hasn't forgotten about immigration reform, but Republican gains in the midterms will make progress extremely unlikely for the foreseeable future. * O'Reilly sure does love his ambushes. * If the right wants to talk about wasteful public spending, can we have a conversation about the conservative-controlled U.S. Commission on Civil Rights spending over $173,000 -- of our money -- "investigating an incident involving voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party -- a case in which no voters have alleged they were intimidated"? * I've never heard of a state that's worried about having too many colleges. * Remember the felony charges pending against disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)? His trial is finally getting underway. * And finally, eight years ago today, Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) died in a tragic plane crash. His thoughtful leadership is still greatly missed. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... It's not at all uncommon to hear voters describe their preferred political scenario -- well-intentioned officials from both parties who work together, with a sense of common interest, to solve policy problems. It's idealized and naive, but the idea of a functioning political system is a vision many Americans probably find appealing. Very few people actually want gridlock and increased partisan strife. It's odd, then, that this is exactly what Americans are poised to give themselves.
Got that? We're not only going to see the entire policymaking process grind to a halt, according to a House GOP leader, that's "the most" we can expect. It's tempting to think that, right about now, with a week to go, Republicans would be sending a very different signal to the country. Don't worry, the GOP might tell voters, we're serious about working in good faith to get things done. We know people are expecting results, they could say, and we have every intention of finding common ground and delivering. Except, that's the opposite of the party's message in the cycle's closing days. A Senate Republican leader just finished announcing that everything going forward will be filtered through the GOP's intention to destroy President Obama politically. A House Republican leader announced last week that GOP lawmakers don't intend to compromise with anyone. And here's another top House Republican declaring in public that "gridlock" is the very best America can do in 2011 and 2012. I rather doubt this message is reaching the American mainstream, but I can't help but wonder how voters would respond to it if they heard about it. A huge chunk of the electorate, especially the amorphous group of self-identified "independents," claims to like the idea of Dems and Republicans cooperating and working together. A growing number of key Republicans are already declaring -- in public and on the record -- they have no intention of doing anything of the sort. We know why, of course -- the GOP just isn't serious about governing or problem-solving -- but doesn't this sound like an awful closing message for a party poised to make huge gains? —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
BOOKERS IN NEED OF BIGGER ROLODEXES.... When it came to the 2009 calendar year, "Meet the Press" had one guest on more than any other: disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Gingrich, who left public office more than a decade ago, made five appearances on NBC's Sunday morning show. How about this year? There are still more than two months left in the 2010 calendar year, but Jon Chait notes this year's MTP frontrunner.
Reviewing the list, Jon's not only right, I'd add that no one else is especially close to Ford's six (and counting) appearances in 2010. Even John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- staples of the genre -- have only been on twice each, at least so far. Gingrich, after five appearances in 2009, hasn't been back at all this year. So I guess the next question is, why Harold Ford? He was a congressman, but he's also a failed Senate candidate from four years ago. Why have him on six times in eight months? Jon argues:
That sounds about right, but I'd add one thing: Harold Ford, Jr., is the chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. The Sunday shows tend to go out of their way to avoid Democrats, but when they find a conservative Democrat who'll argue that the party should move to the right, the bookers are bound to keep bringing him back. —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
THE SPECIAL INGREDIENT: SECRECY.... About four months ago, American Crossroads, created in part by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie to destroy Democratic campaigns, reported on its recent fundraising. After raising over $1 million in start-up funds, the GOP campaign operation had collected only $200. It prompted a fair amount of guffaws. That laughter has long since faded, as American Crossroads has since raised tens of millions of dollars in secret donations, all of which is being used to air deceptive, anti-Democratic attack ads. So, what was with those initial paltry totals? As it turns out, American Crossroads intended to play by more honorable rules, at least at first. Its organizers only ditched the plan when they saw it wouldn't work. From the outset, American Crossroads leaders placed a high value on transparency and embraced the idea of full public disclosure when it came to contributions. Indeed, when the entity was created, Rove & Co. registered American Crossroads as a 527 -- which required regular donor disclosure. It was all part of a larger commitment to, in the words of one group leader, "full accountability." Ken Vogel reports that those principles were quickly thrown out the window when the American Crossroads team learned the right-wing fat cats preferred a system of secret money.
They're apparently motivated by a combination of fear and paranoia. Donors don't want to have to deal with the public scrutiny that comes with trying to purchase American democracy -- go figure -- and they're apparently genuinely afraid of some kind of punishment from the Obama administration. And so, for all the talk about the value of transparency, disclosure, and the norms of American democracy, Crossroads' leaders were more than willing to sell their principles for the value of secrecy. I'm not sure who are bigger cowards -- the donors who buy elections from the shadows or Rove and his team who abandoned their commitments when fundraising totals were underwhelming. —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
PRIORITIZING DEFICIT REDUCTION IS A MISTAKE.... It's too soon to say what kind of policy agenda the White House might pursue in the next Congress. Much of it will be dictated by the results of the midterms, but unpredictable circumstances are also likely to play a role. Planning ahead at this stage is tricky. That said, it's easy to imagine the kinds of things President Obama would like to tackle over the next couple of years. One imagines initiatives that weren't completed in this Congress will get top billing in the next one -- including immigration and energy, for example. The AP reports that another issue is likely to be on the president's mind, though I'm hoping the AP piece is wrong.
Now, I'm not at all sure about the AP report's assumptions about public attitudes. The article states, simply as a matter of fact, that Americans are "fed up with federal spending," but I suspect that's only true in the most shallow and superficial sense. Folks like the idea of spending cuts until they hear about what might actually get the knife. It's precisely why Republicans refuse to offer any specifics about their spending plans -- if they told the truth, they'd lose. But putting aside the media's willingness to simply accept GOP frames as fact, I can only hope the White House isn't taking this deficit reduction effort too seriously. There's a reason Democrats are likely to suffer a brutal midterm cycle, and it has nothing to do with the debt -- the economy stinks. When unemployment is pushing 10%, the incumbent party gets slammed. When there's a jobs crisis and billionaires start buying elections for the party that created the crisis, the incumbent party has it even tougher. But no one really cares about the deficit. They do, however, care about jobs. In tough times, the president will not do himself any favors by taking money out of the economy and undermining public programs that are more important than ever. It's not like this is even an area where the White House can find common ground with Republicans -- the GOP's leaders have already made clear that making the deficit much bigger is fine with them, just so long as the money goes to tax cuts for the wealthy. I know the president has a long to-do list, and the next Congress will be nightmarish if right-wing children are in charge. But that's all the more reason to get the right priorities in line now. Putting the deficit near the top of the list is a mistake. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
THE VALUE OF MCCONNELL'S OCCASIONAL CANDOR.... For all of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) many faults, he has one especially interesting habit. Once in a while, for no apparent reason, McConnell will say what he's actually thinking, giving us fairly valuable insights into his plans and motivations. This isn't to say he's honest -- McConnell has repeatedly proven he isn't -- but rather, that he has occasional flashes of candor. McConnell conceded in August, for example, that as far as he's concerned, literally every idea considered by the Senate in the next Congress "is going to have to be center-right," even if there's a Democratic majority. In March, McConnell acknowledged the entire basis for his health care strategy, explaining that he demanded unanimous GOP opposition, even to ideas Republicans liked, as a way of making reform unpopular. The strategy had nothing to do with policy or actually helping people, and everything to do with denying Democrats a victory. And McConnell was candid once more in a new interview with National Journal, explaining what he sees as his "single most important" task in the near future.
This wasn't just some throwaway line -- McConnell is explaining, on the record, how he intends to approach the policymaking process in 2011 and 2012. And as far as the Republicans' Senate leader is concerned, all of his efforts will be built around destruction. It's tempting to think responsible lawmakers, when asked about their top goals, would talk about job creation, national security, immigration policy, energy, etc. But not Mitch McConnell. He sees destroying the president of the United States in the midst of multiple crises as his "single most important" goal. This is what the administration is supposed to negotiate with next year. Even Joe Scarborough characterized McConnell's comments as "embarrassing" and "pathetic." He's right. This comes, by the way, on the heels of several other high-profile Republicans admitting last week that they have no intention of compromising with the White House on anything. The obvious takeaway here is that GOP leaders have literally no interest in actually solving problems or passing legislation. None. But the larger truth is that President Obama, who's spoken a bit lately about the need for "humility," needs to realize that Republican obstinacy and extremist tactics aren't going to get better after the midterms; they're going to get worse. McConnell and his cohorts have made abundantly clear that Americans' welfare and the nation's future pale in comparison to the Republican quest for power. The president stands in the way. If he's not prepared for what they intend to bring, the showdown isn't going to go well. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
THE CAMPAIGN ROAD NOT TRAVELED.... In Virginia's 7th congressional district, it's probably fair to say Democratic nominee Rick Waugh has no realistic chance of even coming close to winning. He's taking on House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R) in a conservative district, and Nate Silver pegs Waugh's odds of success at 0%. But that doesn't mean the longshot candidate can't make an important contribution to the larger debate. The Waugh campaign unveiled this ad over the weekend, embracing a message I thought we'd be seeing more of right about now. For those of you who can't watch clips from your work computers, the ad starts with images of pictures drawn by children, with a voice-over that says, "A little girl who survived cancer, a boy who was born with a heart defect. Recently, it became illegal to reject these children because they had pre-existing conditions. "Eric Cantor reject this idea. He wants to repeal the new law and allow insurance companies to reject children who've been fighting these battles all of their short lives." The ad closes with Waugh reiterating his commitment to children's health care. A Democratic source told Ben Smith this morning that the ad "could have been a blueprint for Democrats in other races." That's entirely right. For all of the contentiousness about the Affordable Care Act, it includes some really popular provisions, which Republicans fought like hell to kill -- and which Republicans have vowed to repeal. When I first started talking about the "repeal trap" nearly a year ago, this is what I was referring to. Every GOP candidate who opposed health care reform and has vowed to repeal it -- in other words, nearly everyone in the party -- is necessarily taking a stand against wildly popular policies. Dems were supposed to push Republicans into the trap -- pressing them on their opposition to ideas that enjoy broad national support. We've seen a little of this in recent months, but in general, the effort never came together. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * It seems inexplicable under the circumstances, but the U.S. Senate race may be slipping away from Democrats in Illinois. A new Chicago Tribune/WGN poll shows Rep. Mark Kirk (R) leading Alexi Giannoulias (D), 44% to 41%, despite Giannoulias' earlier lead in the same poll. The latest Mason-Dixon poll shows Kirk ahead by a similar margin, 43% to 41%. * In Florida, a new St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald/Bay News 9 poll shows the state's U.S. Senate race all but over, with Marco Rubio (R) leading Gov. Charlie Crist (I), 41% to 26%, with Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) third with 20%. The same poll shows Rick Scott (R) with a narrow lead over Alex Sink (D) in Florida's gubernatorial race, 44% to 41%. * In Colorado, a Denver Post/9 News poll shows the U.S. Senate race all tied up, with Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Ken Buck (R) with 47% each. The same poll shows Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) leading the gubernatorial race with 49% support, followed by former Rep. Tom Tancredo (I) with 39%, and Republican candidate Dan Maes with 9%. * In California, a Los Angeles Times/USC poll released over the weekend showed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading Carly Fiorina (R), 50% to 42%. The same poll also found Jerry Brown (D) with an even bigger lead over Meg Whitman (R) in the state's gubernatorial race, 52% to 39%. * In Missouri's U.S. Senate race, the latest Mason-Dixon poll shows Rep. Roy Blunt (R) leading Robin Carnahan (D) by a fairly comfortable margin, 49% to 40%. * In Ohio's gubernatorial race, a Dayton Daily News/Ohio Newspaper poll shows John Kasich (R) narrowly leading incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 49% to 47%. * In Massachusetts' gubernatorial race, a new Boston Globe poll shows incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick (D) with a narrow lead over Charles Baker (R), 42% to 39%. Independent Tim Cahill (I) is third in the poll with 8%. * In Maryland's gubernatorial race, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) is starting to pull away in his rematch against former Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R). A Baltimore Sun poll shows the incumbent up, 52% to 38%, and the Washington Post shows O'Malley up by a similar margin, 54% to 40%. * And in Minnesota's gubernatorial race, a new Star Tribune poll shows former Sen. Mark Dayton (D) ahead of Tom Emmer (R), 41% to 34%. Independent Tom Horner is third with 13%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
WHEN CONSERVATIVE MEDIA GAY BAITING GETS CHEAP.... Given the Washington Times' unabashed conservatism and antipathy towards the LGBT community, I expect it to defend the status quo on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But is it too much to ask that the paper steer clear of cheap gay-baiting? Actually, yes, it is too much to ask. Media Matters flagged this ugly Washington Times editorial today, that reads like decades-old anti-gay propaganda.
Yes, the Washington Times is comparing gay troops to the disabled ... and Dan Choi "sashays." The editorial is almost a caricature of far-right nonsense. In the editors' minds, it makes sense to compare able-bodied, well-trained, patriotic American volunteers who've already proven they can help keep Americans safe through military service to "a wheelchair-bound infantryman." As Adam Serwer noted this morning, "The Washington Times isn't making an empirical or rational argument, it's just counting on the reader being as frightened and hateful as they are. There's no response to that, other than disgust." I also couldn't help but note that as far the editors of the far-right paper are concerned, those who support ending the existing policy -- a majority of Americans, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and two of his recent predecessors -- just don't care enough about "providing defense to the nation in the most effective way possible." This is pretty idiotic, even by Washington Times standards, but I'd encourage the editors to consider a real-world example. Take the case of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. He's an F-15 fighter pilot, and an 18-year veteran of the United States Air Force. He flew combat missions over Afghanistan in 2002, and over Iraq in 2003. The U.S. government invested $25 million in training Fehrenbach, and it was money well spent -- he's a highly decorated pilot, having received nine air medals, including one for heroism. He's flown 88 combat missions, and logged more than 2,000 flying hours. In the midst of two wars, this war hero is ready to deploy again, hoping to serve his country honorably, but because of his sexual orientation, the government has said Fehrenbach's services are no longer needed. The Washington Times is convinced Americans are less safe with Fehrenbach serving his country. It's a reminder why it's often difficult to take conservatives seriously when it comes to national security. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
BENEFITTING FROM BAILED OUT BOOSTERS.... The financial industry rescue from 2008 remains wildly unpopular, and more than a few candidates are running for Congress this year emphasizing their anti-bailout beliefs. But the Washington Post runs an interesting item today, noting that those that received bailout money aren't exactly sitting on the campaign sidelines. "Companies that received federal bailout money," the piece noted, "including some that still owe money to the government, are giving to political candidates with vigor." And not surprisingly, Republicans are benefiting from bailed out boosters. This isn't illegal, but there is something striking about the politics. This election season, Republicans are benefiting from a bizarre confluence of attitudes -- the GOP supported the bailout, the GOP is picking up votes from those angry about the bailout, and the GOP is collecting cash from the companies that received the bailout. Ezra Klein had a smart take on this earlier:
It's quite a trick the GOP has pulled off. Republicans demanded the bailout; Republicans are picking up big campaign checks from those that received the bailout; Republicans even tried to kill Wall Street reform to bring some safeguards and accountability to the industry that needed the bailout; but whenever the bailout comes up, everyone's still mad at Democrats. Even the perceptions are hard to shake. The Washington Post story on the donations noted in passing that "the TARP program was approved primarily with Democratic support." That's sort of true, to the extent that more congressional Democrats voted for it than congressional Republicans. But the details matter here. The financial industry bailout was passed in October 2008. It was requested by a conservative Republican administration (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney). It was enthusiastically endorsed by the House Republican leadership (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Roy Blunt), the Senate Republican leadership (Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl), both members of the Republican presidential ticket (John McCain and Sarah Palin), and assorted, high-profile conservative voices (Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck). Indeed, this year, the National Republican Congressional Committee is running attack ads against Dems who voted for TARP, despite the fact that they voted the same way as the chairman of ... the National Republican Congressional Committee. The political dynamic here made a right-turn at reasonable, hit the gas, and never looked back. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
UNSOPHISTICATED -- BUT IN A GOOD WAY.... Karl Rove's remarks to Germany's Der Spiegel last week generated a fair amount of attention, mainly because he described Tea Partiers as "not sophisticated" -- a remark that isn't going over well in some far-right circles, most notably with Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, Mike Huckabee piled on, lamenting the "elitism within the Republican establishment." He complained about "the kind of country club attitude that we're not sure there are certain people we really want as members of the club and we're not going to vote them in." Yesterday, Rove tried to backpedal a bit, suggesting he was taken "out of context." Sure, he said, he described the far-right activists as "unsophisticated," but he meant that in a good way.
Recent history has shown Tea Partiers are easily manipulated and duped into believing all kinds of things. But even in this crowd, it's going to be a tough sell convincing them that "unsophisticated" is some kind of compliment. —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
THERE'S NOTHING ROUTINE ABOUT IT.... There was some discussion on the Sunday shows about what's become of campaign financing in American elections, but much of the talk made it seem as if this year was par for the course. It's not. E.J. Dionne Jr. explains this morning that this is "a huge, historic deal," despite media reports that have "treated the spending avalanche as a normal political story and arguments about its dangers as partisan Democratic whining."
I don't doubt that at some point next week, leading Dems are going to note that Republican gains were purchased by shadowy far-right groups, relying on secret donations from a handful of extremely rich conservatives, which progressives simply couldn't keep up with. Republicans and news outlets will call this an "excuse" -- a word Politico used in this context this morning. But dismissing this as little more than an after-the-fact rationalization is a mistake. For one thing, the argument happens to be true. For another, the new system is simply unhealthy. Dionne added, "Secret money is dangerous. Secret money corrupts. Secret money is antithetical to the transparency that democracy requires. And concentrated money, which is what we're talking about here, buys more influence and access than small contributions." And right on cue, the New York Times reports, "The anonymously financed conservative groups that have played such a crucial role this campaign year are starting a carefully coordinated final push to deliver control of Congress to Republicans, shifting money among some 80 House races they are monitoring day by day. Officials involved in the effort over the midterm elections' final week say it is being spearheaded by a core subset of the largest outside conservative groups, which have millions of dollars left to spend on television advertisements, mailings and phone calls for five potentially decisive Senate races, as well as the scores of House races." One of the right-wing hatchet-men boosting Republican candidates, boasted, "We carpet-bombed for two months in 82 races, now it's sniper time." Anyone who thinks this is good for the American political system isn't paying attention. —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
MAKING THE BIGOTRY MORE TRANSPARENT.... That the far-right would go after Rep. Rep. Keith Ellison (D) in Minnesota's 5th congressional district is not surprising. Ellison is one of Congress' leading progressives, and it stands to reason conservatives would love to defeat him. More relevant, though, is how the right shapes its message. Jamil Smith highlights a message distributed over the weekend by Tea Party Nation, touting its support for Ellison's GOP challenger, Lynne Torgeson. Here's the far-right group's message:
As a factual matter, a great deal of this is wrong, or at least misleading. That last line was especially amusing -- if the U.S. government sends aid into Israel, which in turn benefits people in Gaza, and Keith Ellison voted with congressional majorities on the spending bills, so he necessarily has "helped congress send millions of tax to terrorists." But it's that italicized line that's of particular interest. For Tea Party Nation, the incumbent congressman deserves to lose because he's "the only Muslim" lawmaker on the Hill. First, that's simply wrong -- Rep. Andre Carson (D) of Indiana is also Muslim. But putting sloppy errors aside, what difference does Ellison's religion make? We've reached the point in some conservative circles that simply identifying someone as Muslim is an insult. Or in the case of Tea Party Nation, a disqualifier for congressional service. The 2010 cycle will be known for a lot of things, but the use of overt bigotry on the right shouldn't be overlooked as of the key components of the elections. —Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
CHARLES MURRAY'S 'NEW ELITE'.... The Washington Post ran a rather long rant from Charles Murray yesterday, lamenting the "New Elite" and its members' disconnect from the rest of us. Putting aside the question of whether it's wise for the Post to publish Murray at all, the controversial writer wants us to know the good folks who identify with the Tea Party believe "elites are isolated from mainstream America and ignorant about the lives of ordinary Americans." And if you saw the headline, read the lede, and thought, "Wait, is this just going to be another piece about how latte-sipping Volvo drivers see the world differently from Joe Six Pack?" you were definitely on the right track.
If you read that carefully, you'll notice that Murray used the word "probably" twice and "unlikely" three times. In other words, Murray thinks he knows quite a bit about how his "New Elite" think and act, but he doesn't really know, and he's not basing his observations on anything but his own assumptions. There are a set of cultural cliches about elites, and Murray wants us know they're true. How does he know? Apparently we're supposed to take his word for it. But whether there's truth to Murray's premise or not, I'm not sure why we're supposed to care. The notion of elites having different cultural norms, vacation spots, lifestyle choices, and leisure activities than others isn't exactly new -- this has been true for a very long time. Indeed, I think that's why they're called the "elite." Are we witnessing something different with this "New Elite"? Murray doesn't say. Are there cultural consequences of this with broader meaning? Murray doesn't say. His argument ostensibly has something to do with Tea Partiers, but even that's dubious. If there's some kind of class/cultural resentment playing out, why are these far-right activists working to elect candidates who'll prioritize tax cuts for the "New Elite" above all? —Steve Benen 8:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)
FROM THE WEEKEND.... Reader reactions were positive last week, so let's make this a standard Monday-morning feature. Here's a recap of what we covered over the weekend: On Sunday, we talked about... * E.J. Dionne Jr. dropped the pretense and described Fox News as a "Republican propaganda network." * Why it's still a mistake to characterize Tea Partiers as a "movement." * Extremist Senate candidate Pat Toomey is comfortable describing moderate Dems as "extremists." * An unintentionally amusing congressional candidate in Pennsylvania seems deeply confused about the meaning of the word "specifics." * Former President Bill Clinton's campaign efforts are pretty impressive, but 1994 remains relevant history. * Voters who eat food may have a problem with a congressional candidate in Arizona running on a pro-salmonella platform. And on Saturday... * Why the right's fringe seems so much more extreme than the left's. * Why it's deeply silly for GOP leaders to think the Recovery Act caused unemployment. * In "This Week in God," we covered, among other things, why it's a shame the Justice Department actually has to explain in Tennessee that Islam is a religion. * The conventional wisdom about which party is "pro-military" is neither conventional nor wise. * When it comes to his extremist allies, Glenn Beck doesn't want to believe his lying eyes. * And Democrats looking for a morale boost will love the latest Newsweek poll, though that doesn't necessarily make it right. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)
THE NEXT REAL ESTATE BOOM.... The housing market, which drove the economy into ditch, could become the engine that pulls it out. So argue Patrick Doherty and Christopher Leinberger in a provocative cover story in the latest issue of the Washington Monthly. A vast wave of new demand for housing is coming, note the authors, thanks to an epic demographic convergence. Baby boomers, the biggest demographic bloc in the country, are looking to downsize as their nests empty and retirement looms, while their children, the similarly numerous millennial generation, will soon want to purchase their first homes. Neither group, however, is much interested in low-density, auto-dependent suburbs on the metropolitan fringe -- the overbuilding of which helped cause the recession. Instead, these buyers are drawn to denser, lively neighborhoods in cities or inner suburbs where it's possible to walk to stores, restaurants, and mass transit -- think D.C.'s Dupont Circle area, or suburban town centers like Clayton, Missouri, outside St. Louis. Home prices in such places have soared in recent years and stayed relatively high even during the downturn. That's a measure of growing market demand, but also limited supply: thanks to zoning restrictions and infrastructure priorities set by the federal government, too few such neighborhoods exist. But more walkable neighborhoods could be built (and quickly, argue the authors) if the next Congress will act -- for instance, by shifting federal transportation dollars from highways to mass transit. Despite what Republicans might think, such actions would not increase the deficit, but would instead draw hundreds of billions of private investment dollars now sitting on the sidelines back into the productive economy, creating millions of jobs and neighborhoods that are healthier, more energy-efficient, and in line with the way more and more Americans actually want to live. Click to read the story, "The Next Real Estate Boom." —Steve Benen 7:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER ISSUE IS NOW ONLINE.... As of this morning, the Washington Monthly's November/December issue is online. Here's the table of contents: Editor's Note Tilting at Windmills Cover . . .
Bringing It All Back Home Against the Grain Prison Break On Political Books . . . Surge Behind Lines of Authority Liberalism Without Limits Inscrutable Shoppers Belief in Relief Moynihan's Legacy
October 24, 2010
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... A fair amount of the Sunday shows appear to have been devoted to discussing NPR's decision to part ways with Juan Williams. "Fox News Sunday," perhaps not surprisingly given Williams' presence for the roundtable, talked about it at some length, including Brit Hume's suggestion that perhaps NPR is racist. On the flip side, Andrew Sullivan raised a fair point, noting, "On Fox News, if you say something bigoted, you get rewarded, you get promoted, and you get celebrated -- and that's a direct media strategy." But it was E.J. Dionne, appearing on "Meet the Press," whose words seemed especially relevant this morning: "NPR is quite simply one of the best news organizations in the world... Fox News, on the other hand, is a Republican propaganda network." Now, Dionne has a reputation as an influential center-left voice -- he identified himself later in the show as a "liberal" -- but it's worth noting that there was no pushback when he made the observation. I found this noteworthy, not because it was new, but because of Dionne's willingness to state this simply as a matter of incontrovertible fact. We've all seen plenty of commentators, including the one you're reading now, describe Fox News as a "Republican propaganda network." But here was a respected member of the D.C. political establishment, stating plainly on one of the leading Sunday shows -- where such talk is uncommon -- what we all know to be true about Fox News. Good for him. Here's hoping others also drop the "some have accused" and "many Democrats believe" pretenses, and just start describing the network the same way. —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
DON'T CALL IT A MOVEMENT.... Describing the Tea Party crowd last week, Karl Rove told a reporter, "There have been movements like this before -- the Civil Rights movement, the anti-war movement, the pro-life movement, the Second Amendment rights movement." The observation was based on a dubious premise. As Rove and other Republicans see it, there's a Tea Party "movement," somehow distinct-but-not-really from the GOP base, with a set of grievances and priorities that is every bit as clear as those real political movements. But the reason I put "movement" in quotes every time I write about the Tea Partiers is that it's an amorphous group of activists with no clear agenda, no leadership, no internal structure, and no real areas of expertise. Its passionate members, while probably well meaning, appear to have no idea what they're talking about. Genuine political movements -- civil rights, women's suffrage, labor unions -- have, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) recently put it, a "coherent vision." The Tea Party has rage and a cable news network, but that's not much of a substitute. With that in mind, the Washington Post did something quite interesting -- over the course of months, the paper tried to identify, find, contact, and poll literally every self-identified Tea Party group in the country. It is, to my knowledge, an unprecedented media project. The result, Amy Gardner reported today, painted a portrait of "a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process."
There can be little doubt that these activists exist, and that the political world takes them quite seriously. But beyond this, groups and members of this "movement" don't necessarily even agree with one another about their priorities or beliefs. This even applies to the basics -- "less than half" the Tea Party organizations identified "spending and limiting the size of government" as a top concern. It's something to keep in mind the next time someone compares these folks to a real political movement. At least for now, that's not even close to being true. —Steve Benen 11:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
DEPARTMENT OF POTS AND KETTLES.... In a bit of surprise, Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race has quickly become one of the nation's more competitive. Republican Pat Toomey, the former congressman turned Wall Street executive turned right-wing activist, enjoyed considerable leads for months, but as Election Day nears, the race has narrowed considerably. Rep. Joe Sestak (D), the decorated retired Navy admiral, has pulled even in some polls this week. With that in mind, with time running out, voters are getting a much better sense of who Toomey is, and what he's all about. One recent statistical analysis of Toomey's voting record, for example, found that, if elected, he'd be much more conservative than Pennsylvanian Rick Santorum, and his votes make him "more conservative than 97.9% of all United States legislators since 1995." He's talked about privatizing Social Security; he blames FDR for the Great Depression; and he believes laws that don't exist are responsible for the Great Recession. And this doesn't even get to Toomey's controversial Wall Street past, or the fact that he compares moderate Republicans to communists. So, when Toomey appeared on Fox News this morning to make his case, what was his message?
Wow. For the record, according to VoteView scores, Sestak's voting record puts him about in the middle of the House Democratic caucus. There's a House Progressive Caucus for the chamber's most liberal lawmakers, and Sestak isn't a member. On the campaign trail this fall, Sestak has boasted of his endorsements, not from liberal Dems, but from NYC's independent mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Of all the talking points Toomey could push the week before the election, he wants to have an argument about "extremism"? —Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
MAYBE HE FORGOT WHAT 'SPECIFICITY' MEANS.... Pennsylvania's 3rd congressional district is home to one of the most likely Republican pick-up opportunities, with Nate Silver giving the GOP a 93% chance of flipping the seat from "blue" to "red." Locals had a good opportunity to learn more about the man likely to win the race, Republican Mike Kelly, at a debate the other night. The moderator noted Kelly's intention to cut spending, and asked the candidate to offer voters some specifics. Kelly replied, "Sure, I'll address that, and I'll address it very specifically." And here's what that effort at specificity amounted to:
Well, it's clear Mike Kelly has given this a lot of thought, and has clearly done his homework. He's ahead in the polls, and voters probably no longer care, but perhaps sometime before he's sworn in, someone could take Kelly aside and explain what "specific" means. —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
THE BIG DOG ON THE ROAD.... He's the most popular political figure in America, and arguably the only national politician who would be welcome to campaign literally everywhere in the country. And right now, he's working as hard as he can to prevent a dreadful electoral mistake.
It's a pretty fascinating piece about the former president's campaign efforts, which are considerable. By Election Day, Clinton will have appeared in more than 100 events from coast to coast. To say that the Big Dog is taking his campaign efforts seriously would be a dramatic understatement. On the only day off he's taken over the past two weeks, Clinton sat with a legal pad, late into the night, writing up talking points that he wanted Terry McAuliffe to help distribute to candidates. Clinton's concerns strike me as pretty compelling. He thinks his party, for example, has been ineffective in fighting to defend its accomplishments, and I'm very much inclined to agree. The former president isn't satisfied with Democrats' messaging and communications strategies, and that strikes me as more than fair. But there is a pertinent detail that the article largely overlooked. Bill Clinton is arguably the most naturally gifted politician most of us have ever seen, and long-time readers know that I make no secret of my fondness for him (I even interned in his White House in 1995). But for all of Clinton's considerable talents, in his first midterm cycle, his party's candidates ran away from him; he wasn't welcome in districts nationwide; his fellow Democrats allowed themselves to become "human pinatas"; and his party lost both the House and Senate. I mention this because there's a subtext to articles like these: why can't Barack Obama play this game as well as Bill Clinton? The answer is: there's a problem with that question. Josh Marshall had a good piece on this yesterday: "Being president is hard. Being president two years into your first term is hard. And being at the center of the polarizing political storm -- as Obama is today and Clinton was 16 years ago -- tends to wipe the political genius and midas touch and all the other good stuff right off of you. 10% unemployment doesn't make you look that good either. This isn't justifying any mistakes. But I'm surprised how short the memories are of many people who do this political analysis thing for a living." —Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
E COLI CONSERVATISM ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE.... Over the summer, there was a major egg recall, following at least 1,300 salmonella-related illnesses spanning 22 states over the summer. The Washington Post reported in August that the outbreak highlights the need to fix "the holes in the country's food safety net." That truth was hard to deny, and even harder to ignore. As we learned more about the story, we saw that the salmonella problems stemmed from an uninspected producer in Iowa, with a record of health, safety, labor, and other violations that go back 20 years. The need for better regulations and enforcement has been obvious for decades, but conservative, anti-regulatory lawmakers have consistently put industry profits above public safety. With this in mind, Zaid Jilani flags a story that's so astounding, it's almost hard to believe.
If you're skeptical a congressional candidate could really be this crazy, all of this was captured on video. It really never occurred to me that right-wing Republicans would start running on a pro-salmonella platform, but Jesse Kelly and his Tea Party allies have a surprisingly twisted worldview. Kelly seriously seems to believe that laws to enforce food safety are unnecessary, and may ultimately make matters worse. Just let the free market work its magic, and everything will be fine. It's hard to overstate how radical this is. A lack of regulation is literally putting Americans who eat food in the hospital with life-threatening illnesses, but instead of wanting to improve safeguards, zealots like Kelly insist the FDA should stand aside and let us fend for ourselves. Usually, when an outbreak occurs, reasonable people notice the need for public safety and reject the anti-government crusade. This congressional candidate -- who stands a fairly strong chance of winning -- is doubling down. Jesse Kelly actually supports the notion of Americans playing Russian Roulette every time they go to the grocery store. A few years ago, Rick Perlstein even coined a phrase to capture this ideology: "E. Coli Conservatism." I can only assume the vast majority of the country has no idea what they're about the elect. —Steve Benen 8:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
ON THE GROUND IN FRANCE.... There's been a fair amount of domestic coverage this week about austerity measures being debated in France, and the ensuing protests from workers who'll bear the brunt of the cutbacks. Stephen Hill, in Europe for a 20-city tour, published an item for his Washington Monthly project yesterday, reporting from Paris.
It's a helpful take on recent events and the larger context. Take a look. —Steve Benen 7:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
October 23, 2010
WHY PARTISAN STORM WINDS BLOW STRONGER IN ONE DIRECTION.... There's something easy, if not lazy, about describing partisan pushback against an incumbent majority as little more than a natural cycle. When Democrats are ascendant, Republicans go berserk; when the GOP is running the show, it's Dems who are enraged. Both sides have their share of angry partisans, the argument goes, but this doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the larger parties and/or ideologies. I'm fairly confident these assumptions are entirely wrong. There's something fundamentally different about how the left and right approach partisan rage, at least in the modern era, and there's value in understanding why. I remember Kevin Drum had an item about a year ago, describing the "surge" in conservative nuttiness in the Obama era. At the time, he chalked it up to two main problems: (1) "conservative nutballs" are larger in number than the liberal fringe; and (2) the "conservative lunatic brigade appeared so goddamn fast." Kevin reconsidered the question this week, and came up with an even-better list.
I think numbers 3 and 4 are the most compelling, in large part because I think the fundamental problem with right-wing hysteria is that it's so darn mainstream. In Democratic circles, 9/11 Truthers, Code Pink, Diebold folks, and the like can't get any establishment attention at all. Members of Congress won't return their phone calls or even be seen in public with them. On the right, however, there's practically nothing a right-wing extremist can say or do to be exiled from polite company. There's a clear and impermeable line between the progressive mainstream and the left fringe. The line between the Republican Party/conservative movement and the far-right fringe barely exists. Whereas Dems kept the fringe at arm's length, Republicans embrace the fringe with both arms. Both sides have nutjobs; only one side thinks their nutjobs are sane. That said, Kevin added that there's "something different about left-wing and right-wing craziness that goes beyond just the ideological differences," and I know what he means. His list is very strong -- I can't think of anything he missed -- but there seems to be more going on here. So, I thought I'd open it up to some discussion. What are we missing? —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (107)
WHAT SESSIONS THINKS 'CREATED UNEMPLOYMENT'.... I can understand why Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), this year's chairman of the NRCC, would feel a little embarrassed. We learned this week that the far-right Texan, who's spent quite a bit of time lately trashing the Recovery Act, has taken steps that suggest he doesn't believe his own talking points. While Sessions has argued that government spending couldn't possibly improve the economy, and that the stimulus was one big waste, Sessions also quietly urged the Obama administration to spend stimulus money in his district. Indeed, the Republican lawmaker said government spending in his area would create jobs -- while simultaneously telling the public that government spending is incapable of creating jobs. But while some humiliation is expected, that's hardly an excuse for rhetoric that makes Sessions look even more ridiculous. ABC News chatted with Sessions this week about his stimulus contradictions, but his response clearly needs some work.
Blaming the stimulus for the debt is pretty silly. Republicans added $5 trillion to the debt in just eight years, and the deficit is actually smaller now than it was when President Obama took office. If Sessions were serious about debt reduction, he could start by denouncing his own intention to pass $4 trillion in tax cuts that aren't paid for. But it's that other point that really stands out for me. As Sessions sees it, the Recovery Act "created" unemployment. There are plenty of credible ways for grown-ups to look at the stimulus, but this isn't one of them. The argument is just too crazy. If one wants to argue that the stimulus should have been bigger and more ambitious to create a more robust recovery, that's certainly fair. If one wants to argue that the economy would be in the identical shape it's in now had the Recovery Act never passed, that's wrong, but we can at least have the conversation. Arguing that the stimulus actually hurt the economy, however, is evidence of a deeply confused person. The stimulus "created" unemployment? In what universe is that true? Just recently, the Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus boosted overall economic growth in the second quarter by as much as 4.5%, and as many as 3.3 million Americans have jobs now who wouldn't otherwise if the stimulus hasn't passed. If Sessions wants to characterize this as inadequate, that's fine, since no one's satisfied with the status quo. But blaming unemployment on the stimulus is insane. I don't expect much from this guy -- Sessions is the one who insisted America has to go back to "the exact same agenda" we had during the Bush/Cheney years -- but this absurd, even for him. —Steve Benen 11:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a look at a step from the U.S. Justice Department that, under more sensible circumstances, would have never been necessary.
At issue is a court case in Murfreesboro, Tenn., in which a group of locals hope to prevent another group of locals from building a new mosque/community center. That the community has been home to a group of Muslim Americans for several decades, without incident, is apparently irrelevant. As part of the plaintiff's case, opponents of the proposed building hope to convince a judge that -- in all seriousness -- Islam, one of the world's largest faith traditions, isn't actually a religion, and therefore local Muslim Americans have no First Amendment rights. The absurdity of the argument prompted the Justice Department to weigh in, explaining that denying Muslims in this case would be a civil rights violation. "A mosque is quite plainly a place of worship, and the county rightly recognized that it had an obligation to treat mosques the same as churches, synagogues or any other religious assemblies," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, in a statement from the Department of Justice. That this even has to be said in the 21st century is a national embarrassment. Also from the God Machine this wek: * The Falwell-created Liberty University, an evangelical Christian college in Virginia, routinely condemns "welfare" and government aid to Americans in need. At the same time, however, Liberty University's students rely heavily on taxpayer-financed tuition aid, and school officials don't seem to notice the contradiction. (thanks to Morbo for the heads-up) * As if this story couldn't get any worse, Belgium's Roman Catholic Church, already reeling from its suspected role in the systemic sexual abuse of children, was at the center of a new scandal this week after its primate, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, described AIDS as "a sort of inherent justice." (thanks to reader R.P.) * California's Crystal Cathedral megachurch has filed for bankruptcy, drowning in $43 million of debt. Crystal Cathedral is perhaps best known for launching the "Hour of Power" program. * The Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, and Rick Santorum are working together to target several Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled last year that two consenting adults have a legal right to get married. * I believe the right's talk about a "War on Christmas" should wait at least until after Halloween. If only the American Family Association agreed. * And finally, the Vatican's newspaper is, I'm pleased to report, fond of "The Simpsons." (thanks to D.J.) —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
THE PRO-MILITARY PARTY.... Over the last couple of years, there's been a striking trend that runs counter to the conventional wisdom: on nearly all issues related to the military and national security, military leaders and Republicans have been on opposite sides. Since President Obama's inauguration, the divide has been unmistakable. On everything from counter-proliferation to 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 White House's approach enjoys the backing of the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Petraeus, and other senior military leaders, while Republicans are on a separate page altogether. The general perception that characterizes Republicans as "pro-military" stands in contrast to the fact that the official GOP line has deliberately rejected the judgment of the nation's military leaders on nearly everything. The issue came into sharper focus this week, with the release of a congressional scorecard from the nonpartisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund, rating lawmakers on their votes related to veterans' issues. The partisan divide was as obvious as it was important. Brad Johnson reminds us that Rachel Maddow did a good segment on this the other day, highlighting the fact of the 94 members of Congress who earned an A or an A+, 91 were Democrats. Of the 154 lawmakers who received a D or F, 142 were Republicans: All of this, meanwhile, comes against a backdrop of GOP candidates who appear surprisingly anxious to privatize the Veterans' Administration. Remind me, which party has a more credible case for being labeled "pro-military"? —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
BECK ON BRODEN.... Even by the standards of GOP House candidates this year, Stephen Broden is rather shocking. The Republican nominee in Texas' 30th congressional district was asked this week to explain comments he made regarding launching a "revolution" against the United States government. Broden responded that the violent overthrow of America's elected leadership "is on the table." On his radio show yesterday, Fox News' Glenn Beck said the media accounts don't seem credible to him.
In fairness to Beck, he went on to re-emphasize that if Broden really did say what he'd been quoted saying, Beck would "denounce him and I would come out and campaign against it." It's just that Beck assumes, confidently, that the press is wrong. This struck me as interesting for a couple of reasons. The first is that news accounts aren't just entirely correct, there's even a video of Broden making the remarks. Indeed, Broden isn't even trying to deny the accuracy of the reports. Beck can choose not to believe his lying eyes, but reality is stubborn. But the other angle to this is that I suspect Beck's response is probably pretty widespread on the right, representing some sort of conservative defense mechanism to counter news they don't care for. Broden is open to violence against the United States? "I don't believe it." Candidate So-and-so has an awful voting record? "I don't believe it for a second." There's overwhelming evidence pointing to global climate change? "I don't believe the press has that science right." It's a knee-jerk denial that makes everything seem better. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
ABANDON ALL HOPE? NOT QUITE YET.... The question isn't whether Democrats are in for a beating in the midterm elections; the question is how severe it will be. But before a sense of dread and gloom overcomes the party and its supporters, it's worth pausing to take note of at least some evidence that suggests the results might not be that bad. The Washington Post reports this morning, for example, "In an election year when good news has been scarce for Democrats, anxious party strategists are heartened by at least one development: In states that have started voting, early indications are that Democratic turnout could be stronger than expected." McClatchy reported overnight that "in a handful of states -- Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania and West Virginia -- the Democrats now have at least a fighting chance to hold Senate seats that looked lost in September. If they succeed, they greatly increase their odds of retaining control of the Senate, even as they still appear likely to lose control of the House of Representatives." And then there's the newly-published Newsweek poll.
While several recent polls have shown Dems faring well among registered voters, the more important measurement is with likely voters. Newsweek, though, shows Democrats leading with them, too -- 48% to 45%. The same poll shows President Obama's approval rating getting a big bump, to 54%, its highest point in a very long while. Congressional Dems' approval rating is up a bit in this poll, while Newsweek shows the congressional GOP sliding a bit. There's good reason for skepticism here. It's tempting to think polls that tell you what you want to hear must be right, but that's generally unwise. For much of the year, Newsweek polls have shown a far more favorable Democratic landscape, and no other major pollster is showing trends similar to this one. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means caution would be prudent before Dems get too excited with the results. That said, this, when coupled with the other recent reports, suggests the election cycle isn't quite over yet. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
October 22, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * About those talks in Afghanistan: "Despite news reports of high-level talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, no significant peace negotiations are under way in Afghanistan, U.S. officials and Afghanistan experts said Thursday." * Nevertheless, Gen. David Petraeus continues to sound optimistic. (More surprisingly, Fred Kaplan is starting to sound more optimistic, too.) * A swastika-adorned package was sent to Rep. Rep. Raul Grijalva's (D-Ariz.) this week, with a suspicious powder inside. The FBI has determined, as of this afternoon, that the substance is "non-toxic." * An attempt to limit trade imbalances: "The Obama administration on Friday urged the world's biggest economies to set a numerical limit on their trade imbalances, in a major new effort to broker an international consensus on how to handle festering exchange-rate tensions." * For the right, there's some kind of Democratic/Republican equivalence between groups using undisclosed funds to influence election outcomes. Given the actual numbers -- nearly $75 million to help the GOP, under $10 million in support of Democrats -- the talking point is demonstrably ridiculous. * The Pentagon isn't going to ignore the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates has issued a directive that would make discharges under the law a lot more difficult. * President Obama will name Denis McDonough as his new Deputy National Security Advisor. * In an apparent attempt to sound reasonable, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said there's "not a chance" he would pursue impeachment against the president if there's a GOP majority in the House. * Student debt gets worse, as does the ability to pay off these student loans. * Fox News has rewarded Juan Williams with a three-year, $2 million contract. Imagine that. * Remember when Republicans said the Andy Griffith/Medicare commercials HHS ran were illegal propaganda? Well, the allegations were wrong. * The idea of defunding the Supreme Court out of partisan spite is insane. * Remember the Citizens Against Government Waste ad we talked about earlier? Campus Progress quickly put together a very clever spoof, which (a) is pretty darn clever; and (b) already annoying the hell out of Citizens Against Government Waste. (thanks to reader K.A. for the tip) Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ON THE LINE (AGAIN).... In economic conditions like these, Congress has never failed to extend unemployment benefits. But with the Republican Party never having been this uniformly conservative before, and with the Senate no longer operating by majority rule, an extension that would need to pass in the lame-duck session is very much in doubt. The consequences for struggling Americans matter.
Christine Owens, executive director of the NELP, said today, "Over one million workers will be cut off unemployment insurance in just one month, starting November, unless Congress continues the federal emergency extensions for jobless Americans. These are people who have been laid off through no fault of their own and are desperately looking for jobs, but would be snapped from the lifeline of jobless benefits just as holiday season kicks into high gear." For Republicans, who've suggested that those struggling to find work in the midst of a jobs crisis are lazy and quite possibly drug addicts, this isn't cause for concern. Indeed, while the GOP has repeatedly demanded that trillions of dollars in an additional debt is entirely acceptable when it's tax cuts on the line, the same Republican officials have said aid to the unemployed shouldn't even get an up-or-down vote unless they're fully paid for (at which point much of the GOP will vote against the benefits anyway). Now, you might be thinking, "But wait, won't this be awful for the economy? If more than 1.2 million people lose their benefits, which they invariably spend, won't this mean hardship for those families compounded by less economic activity for everyone else?" And if that is what you're thinking, you probably aren't going to enjoy the next Congress very much. Of course, if everyone who's lost their job, or are worried they might lose their job, were to vote in the midterms for candidates most likely to look out for them, this wouldn't be much of a problem. But given that such turnout is unlikely, Congress' ability to extend these benefits very likely won't come together. —Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
GREAT PRODUCTION VALUES, DUMB MESSAGE.... One of this week's most talked about television ads is a 63-second spot from a far-right group called Citizens Against Government Waste. It's extremely slick, but what it has in style it lacks in honesty, substance, and basic understanding of recent history. For those of you who can't watch clips from your work computers, the "ad" (whether it's actually going to air anywhere is unclear) purports to show a university-style classroom in Beijing in 2030. We see by way of subtitles that a professor tells his students why "great nations fall," pointing to Ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the United States. All four, we're told, turned their backs on their "principles." The U.S. "tried to tax and spend itself out of a great recession," including "enormous so-called 'stimulus' spending," changing the health care system, "government takeover of private industries," and "crushing debt." The professor, turning smug, tells his students that China owned most of America's debt, which is why Americans now "work for" the Chinese. The students chuckle at those foolish Americans. This is so blisteringly dumb, it's hard to even know where to start. I suppose the most glaring problem is with the premise that those rascally Democrats destroyed America by believing in progressive policy solutions. Putting aside the fact that Recovery Act really did help the economy enormously, James Fallows added that the ad is "hilariously wrong" given the Chinese context: "The ad has the Chinese official saying that America collapsed because, in the midst of a recession, it relied on (a) government stimulus spending, (b) big changes in its health care systems, and (c) public intervention in major industries -- all of which of course, have been crucial parts of China's (successful) anti-recession policy." If only Citizens Against Government Waste appreciated current events as much as production values. What's more, if this right-wing group that created the ad were so concerned about debt and deficits, why complain about a health care reform package that reduces budget shortfalls? Indeed, why hasn't this group gone after Republicans for adding $5 trillion to the debt in just eight years, refusing to pay for wars and a Medicare expansion? For that matter, literally right now Republicans are demanding an additional $4 trillion in tax cuts, all of which would be paid for by borrowing, largely through the Chinese. Where's the Citizens Against Government Waste campaign against the GOP tax plan that would, apparently, hasten our national demise and enslave us to China? I also love the idea of a Chinese professor blasting the U.S. for "government takeovers of private industries." Yeah, the Chinese wouldn't know anything about that. Obama rescued American auto manufacturers and prevented a collapse of our manufacturing industry, but never mind all that, says the silly conservative activist group. I can appreciate the spot is representative of misguided Tea Party-style fantasies, and many conservatives may even find this silliness persuasive. I suppose the moral of the story, then, is that the left needs to figure out a way to make reality look as slick as deceptive far-right propaganda. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
BUSH GETS INTROSPECTIVE.... George W. Bush appeared in Chicago yesterday, speaking at a conference for a finance trade association, and talked a bit about his upcoming book -- which will be published the week after the midterm elections. There was one point from the Chicago Tribune's report, however, that stood out for me.
I hate to be a stickler about such things, but that's not quite right. As I recall, amid a real danger, quite a few national security catastrophes happened -- including the attacks of 9/11, the anthrax attacks against Americans, terrorist attacks against U.S. allies, the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the summer of 2001, against the backdrop of reports of a pending al Qaeda attack, a CIA official traveled to Bush's summer getaway to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." His biggest accomplishment was keeping the country safe amid a real danger? —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
PENTAGON BUDGET CUTS HAVE TO BE ON THE TABLE.... I continue to believe in a simple litmus test -- if you claim to believe in fiscal responsibility and want to cut the deficit, you can't insist that the Pentagon budget is untouchable. It's an immediate credibility killer, reflecting a fundamental lack of seriousness about the subject. The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Republican Party line on this remains ambiguous, and "whether major cuts to military spending will be on the table remains unresolved."
Those on the right resisting any reductions in military spending are actually pretty plentiful -- and powerful. Arthur Brooks, Ed Feulner, and Bill Kristol recently made the case that slashing spending would be a good idea, just as soon as policymakers agree to put a fence around the Pentagon budget so it's protected. The American Enterprise Institute, the Foreign Policy Initiative, and the Heritage Foundation recently issued a report making the same case. It's important to emphasize, though, that the right isn't united on this one. A lot of Tea Partiers have endorsed Pentagon cuts, and we've heard some encouraging rhetoric in recent weeks from Illinois' Mark Kirk (R), Georgia's Johnny Isakson (R), and Kentucky's Rand Paul (R). Even Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, conceded recently, "The Pentagon's budget itself is not working right, so there are billions of dollars of waste you can get out of the Pentagon, lots of procurement waste. We're buying some weapons systems I would argue you don't need anymore." What's more, a Sustainable Defense Task Force, led by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), but featuring 55 other lawmakers from both parties, recently sent a letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, recommending sensible, responsible cuts to the Pentagon budget. This shouldn't even be controversial. Defense spending will top $700 billion in the next fiscal year. For so many Republicans to insist that we cut spending, but deliberately ignore the largest discretionary portion of the budget, is absurd. The United States now spends about as much on defense as every other country on the planet combined. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, publicly and repeatedly, that the United States can't keep spending such vast amounts of money on the military indefinitely. It's simply unsustainable. It's the first hurdle that has to be cleared for the rest of the fiscal discussion to even get underway. Those who claim credibility on the subject, but believe a bloated Pentagon budget is untouchable, shouldn't even be part of the conversation. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
BIG NAMES, SMALL MEMBERSHIPS.... As far-right groups organize to help buy elections for Republican congressional candidates, voters are hearing names they've never heard before. Attack ads certainly aren't new, but unknown political entities financing them are. What's interesting, though, is peeling back the curtain a bit, and seeing just how tiny the number of right-wing financiers is. We learned this week, for example, that Concerned Taxpayers of America, a new conservative group, appears to consist of only two taxpayers, who just happen to be spending heavily to attack a couple of Democrats. Voters see the outfit's message, but don't realize that "Concerned Taxpayers" is two wealthy guys who created a "Super PAC" that can spend and raise unlimited funds. Amanda Terkel reports today on just common this is.
An outfit calling itself the Concerned Citizens for a Working America is one shadowy non-profit. Taxpayers Against Earmarks is just one taxpayer who seems to hate Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D).
The Wild West of campaign financing sure is unpleasant. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
DEMINT EYES DEFUNDING OF NPR, PBS.... I suppose this was the inevitable result of the Juan Williams firing. When Fox News personalities are under fire, congressional Republicans are generally willing to intervene.
Of course, anyone who's listened to NPR knows how very wrong that is, but this little stunt isn't about accuracy; it's about the right's anti-media campaign. DeMint's statement added, "Since 2001, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds programming for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, has received nearly $4 billion in taxpayer money." I don't know if that's true -- DeMint is not above making things up -- but let's say for the sake of conversation that the figure is accurate, and that the CPB has received nearly $4 billion since 2001. My next question is, why is DeMint just starting to care now? DeMint was elected to Congress in 1998, and has been in the Senate since 2004. As far as I can tell, he's never tried to strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of its public financing before. NPR fires one pretty awful political commentator for, among other things, having a problem with one of the world's largest religions, and now DeMint is ready act? House Republicans -- who had a majority and a Republican president for six years not too long ago, but took no interest in this -- are making similar noises, despite not having lifted a finger on this for years. I have no idea how or whether this will resonate with the public, though I seem to recall Newt Gingrich getting vilified in the mid-'90s for trying to "kill Big Bird" when a similar effort came up. But it's not unreasonable to wonder whether Republicans are tripping over their own closing statement here. Instead of talking about any of the issues that have worked pretty well for them, leading GOP officials want to talk about ... the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Dave Weigel asked, "Doesn't this remind that voter whom the Democrats are trying to spook with Christine O'Donnell attacks that the GOP he's voting for is going to wage culture war as much as it's going to try and bring back jobs?" —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * President Obama's travel schedule has added a few more campaign stops. In the final weekend of the election cycle, the president will hold rallies in Philadelphia, Bridgeport, Chicago, and Cleveland. * In Ohio, the latest Time/CNN poll shows incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D) actually leading John Kasich (R), 48% to 47%. No other poll in recent weeks shows Kasich trailing, so take it with a grain of salt. The same poll shows Rob Portman leading Ohio's U.S. Senate race by 15 points. * Florida's gubernatorial race couldn't be much closer, with a new Sunshine State News Poll showing Alex Sink (D) and Rick Scott (R) tied at 45% each. * Speaking of competitive gubernatorial races, the race to replace Gov. Ed Rendell (D) in Pennsylvania looked like a blowout up until very recently, and now a new Quinnipiac poll shows Tom Corbett's (R) lead over Dan Onorato (D) shrinking to just five points, 49% to 44%. * In Nevada, extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) has taken to literally shushing reporters who ask questions she doesn't like. * In a reminder of why GOP candidates are poised to do very well despite the Republican National Committee, the national party wrote a $15,000 check to Guam recently, hoping to boost a Republican candidate running in the island territory's gubernatorial election. * In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, Richard Blumenthal (D) appears to be pulling away, with a new Suffolk University poll showing him leading Linda McMahon (R), 57% to 39%. * In Arkansas, the latest Time/CNN poll shows incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) trailing John Boozman (R), 55% to 41%, in one of the year's easiest GOP pick-ups. The same poll, however, also shows incumbent Gov. Mike Beebe (D) cruising to re-election, despite the state's shift to the sharp right. * In Illinois' gubernatorial race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Bill Brady (R) narrowly leading Gov. Pat Quinn (D), 42% to 41%. * And in New York's gubernatorial race, the latest Marist poll shows Andrew Cuomo (D) with a big lead over Carl Paladino (R), 60% to 37%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
DON'T PUT VIOLENCE 'ON THE TABLE'.... No sooner do I publish an item about a House Republican candidate and politically violent rhetoric than an even more striking example comes up. In Texas' 30th congressional district, Republican candidate Stephen Broden was asked to explain comments he made regarding launching a "revolution" against the United States government. His response wasn't compelling.
How gracious of him. He hasn't ruled out a violent overthrow of our government, but he's not ready to take up arms against the United States as a "first option." I feel safer already. For what it's worth, Broden appears to be a longshot in his race against incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D), but the fact that his violence-related rhetoric hasn't been enough to cause the Republican Party at any level to denounce Broden isn't exactly encouraging. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
'I'D TRUST HIM WITH MY BULLET'.... I realize it's a contentious election season, and candidates, pundits, and even regular ol' voters are going to push the rhetorical envelope a bit. But I continue to feel deeply uncomfortable with instances in which the right talks up using violence for political ends. In New York's 20th district, Republican Chris Gibson is taking on incumbent Rep. Scott Murphy (D), and using all of the old, tired talking points. But in a new video, Gibson, after complaining about "big government," asks a group of voters, "What do you think he thinks of your privacy? You trust a guy like that with your guns?" Many in the audience say, "No," but one attendee is clearly heard yelling out, "I'd trust him with my bullet!" Gibson said nothing in response. The Republican campaign argued yesterday that the far-right candidate didn't hear the comment. That's very hard to believe -- not only is the remark easily heard on the clip, but Gibson appears to look right at the guy after he said it. Now, I have no idea whether the voter who yelled out actually intends to commit an act of violence -- we can certainly hope not -- but I'd feel a whole lot better about Republican candidates like Gibson if they were willing to tell their supporters that such talk is unacceptable. Ella Wheeler Wilcox once said, "To sit in silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men." Chris Gibson offers a pretty clear example of this. What's more, Chris Gibson told the same group, "We are facing threats from both abroad and from within. Al-Qaida from abroad and federal encroachment here at home." What kind of candidate for public office compares the government of the United States to al Qaeda? I guess the kind of candidate who remains silent when a supporter talks about shooting his opponent. Gibson, by the way, remains a very competitive GOP challenger, with a chance of actually winning that seat. Update: What's more, Gibson isn't just some random fringe candidate who won a primary on a fluke -- he's a member of the NRCC's "Young Guns" program. Second Update: I originally thought the "bullet" and "al Qaeda" remarks were from separate events, but they came from the same gathering. I've corrected the text accordingly. —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
HEALTH CARE POLL SEVERELY UNDERCUTS GOP MESSAGE.... The good news for Republicans in the new Associated Press poll is that the smear campaign against health care reform remains largely effective -- Americans don't necessarily know what it's in the Affordable Care Act, but a majority of them still don't like it. The bad news is public attitudes still aren't close to where the right wants them to be.
As far as conservatives go, the line is pretty straightforward: the new health care law is unpopular because Americans are uncomfortable with how sweeping it is and how far it goes. It's this sentiment, they assume, that will fuel Republicans' "repeal" push. But their assumptions are still wrong. In the AP poll, 37% adopt the far-right line and prefer a full repeal, but a nearly identical number, 36%, want revisions to the Affordable Care Act so that it goes even further. These 36% aren't necessarily thrilled with the new law, but from their perspective, they want the reforms to be more expansive, not less. And if I had to guess, of the 37% who want a full repeal, that number would drop considerably if these folks knew what the consequences would be. I wonder what the discourse would be like if equal attention were paid to those who want even more ambitious health care reforms, as compared to those who think the Affordable Care Act is some sort of secret communist plot. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
HATCHET-MEN ARE NOT WITHOUT A SENSE OF HUMOR.... In Nevada's U.S. Senate race, a new ad from the Karl Rove-affiliated group Crossroads GPS asks voters, "Are you tired of all these negative political ads?"
I'd go just a little further still -- a group that specializes in running almost nothing but deceptive and negative attack ads, created in part by a GOP hatchet-man who specializes in crafting nothing but deceptive and negative attack ads, is running a spot that's deceptive and negative, asking voters, "Are you tired of all these negative political ads?" Down the rabbit hole we go. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR FUTURE OBSTINACY.... I distinctly remember President Clinton's State of the Union address in 1995, just a few months after Republicans took back Congress. If anyone was wondering whether he'd be combative in the wake of a dreadful midterm cycle, Clinton quickly showed otherwise, insisting that the GOP-led Congress and the Democratic White House must "work together." All told, he used the word "together" 17 times in the speech. Given the way the political winds are blowing, it's easy to imagine President Obama delivering a similar address early next year, trying to find areas of agreement and policies where compromise is possible. With that in mind, Republicans are already laying the groundwork, making clear they have no intention of compromising with anyone.
Pence's remarks come the same week as Ken Buck (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Colorado, insisted that he'll refuse to cooperate with those he disagrees with if elected. "I think it's wrong to compromise your values to fit in with the social climate in Washington, D.C.," he said. "When it comes to spending, I'm not compromising. I don't care who, what, when or where, I'm not compromising." The polling on this can be a little tricky, but I suspect much of the American mainstream -- especially self-identified "independents" -- likes the idea of policymakers from different parties finding areas of common ground and making compromises to advance solutions. I tend to think far too much is made of this -- I prefer policies with merit, whether they enjoy bipartisan support or not, and think it's a mistake to ignore the substantive differences between the parties -- but it still seems pretty clear that a huge chunk of the electorate, exasperated by partisan fights, can't imagine why Democratic and Republican leaders won't make concessions and reach agreements on key issues. Which is why I think remarks like those from Pence and Buck are actually pretty important. Eleven days before Election Day, high-profile Republicans want Americans to know that a vote for the GOP is a vote against compromise, against bipartisan agreements, and against powerful officials working together with a sense of common purpose. Is this the sort of message that resonates with voters? —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: 'IT GETS BETTER'.... With several recent youth suicides stemming from anti-gay bullying, an initiative like the It Gets Better Project has an opportunity to make an enormous difference. As part of the effort, created last month by Dan Savage, people from a variety of backgrounds submit videos reminding LGBT young people that in time, life really does get better, even if it's hard to imagine a better future now. Last night, the initiative received a major boost from the White House, with President Obama recording a video for the project. "You are not alone," the president explained. "You didn't do anything wrong. You didn't do anything to deserve being bullied. And there is a whole world waiting for you, filled with possibilities. There are people out there who love you and care about you just the way you are. And so, if you ever feel like because of bullying, because of what people are saying, that you're getting down on yourself, you've got to make sure to reach out to people you trust. Whether it's your parents, teachers, folks that you know care about you just the way you are. You've got to reach out to them, don't feel like you're in this by yourself. "The other thing you need to know is, things will get better. And more than that, with time you're going to see that your differences are a source of pride and a source of strength. You'll look back on the struggles you've faced with compassion and wisdom." What's more, the White House posted an item from Brian Bond, the deputy director of the Office of Public Engagement, who not only shared his own story about being taunted as a young person, but who who also acknowledged that he considered suicide. His piece on the White House blog also includes links and information on anti-bullying resources. All of this comes the same week as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also recorded a video message for the It Gets Better project. I don't know what the response will be from the LGBT community about these efforts, and I suppose it's possible that some of the frustrations surrounding DADT and other issues will lead some to look askance at all of this. But if we put politics and motivations aside, if even just one young person who's feeling isolated and who's struggling right now sees President Obama's video and feels a little more hopeful about his or her future, then this will have been well worth it. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
October 21, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * The total is still obviously too high, but it was good to see the initial jobless claims drop even more than expected over the last week. * Passing the Affordable Care Act was a milestone achievement, but it was the first of many steps. Implementing the new law will be a major undertaking, and today's initial work on medical-loss ratios was very encouraging. (When consumer advocates are thrilled, and insurance industry lobbyists are not, it's a good sign.) * I realize why the Juan Williams story is interesting, but reasonable people should be able to agree his story isn't similar to Shirley Sherrod's. * Most of the benefactors backing Karl Rove's attack operations are still secret, but not all of them -- the financier of the Swift Boat Liars ponied up $7 million recently. * As you've no doubt heard, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Pentagon to go back to enforcing DADT late yesterday. * Farcical: "Dick Morris used his position as a Fox News 'political analyst' to tout and solicit donations for the Republican-aligned group Americans for New Leadership weeks after they began paying him thousands of dollars. During his appearances, Morris did not disclose that he was receiving money from the group." * Speaking of Fox News, the Republican network is being sued by a former employee who claims he was fired after complaining about workplace racism. * The regional trends are unmistakable: in the Northeast, where sex-ed is the norm, teen-birth rates are extremely low. In the "Bible Belt," where abstinence education is the norm, teen-birth rates are extremely high. That's not a coincidence. * I don't really mind that Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) attacked the Affordable Care Act in the Wall Street Journal. I mind that his argument is filled with errors of fact and judgment. * The country seems to be growing a lot more segregated by education. * Have I mentioned lately that Tom Toles is a national treasure? Well, he is. * A Tea Party group in South Dakota is sponsoring an event with Glenn Beck in just a few days. The venue holds 10,000 people, and around 9,000 seats are still available. * And my favorite quote of the day comes from a woman named Kelly Khuri, a prominent Tea Party activist in Indiana, who tried to explain why she's so opposed to the idea of dealing with the climate crisis. "Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it's all just a money-control avenue," Khuri said. "Some people say I'm extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too." That has to be one of my favorite quotes in a long while. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
THE SUBTEXT OF DISHING PALIN DIRT.... Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is obviously one of the more active national players this year, making plenty of campaign appearances for her preferred far-right candidates. Jonathan Martin notes today that those who come in contact with her and her team, however, are left feeling "angered and frustrated."
Martin added that Palin has "trust issues," which means she won't expand her inner circle and can't "establish the sort of infrastructure necessary to coordinate basic matters such as surrogacy and travel." The result is a sizable group of GOP officials, who characterize Palin's "disorganization and restrictions ... as rude." Martin wasn't lacking in anecdotes for the piece -- candidates, state parties, conservative media outlets, and party operatives all seemed anxious to let Politico know how truly awful it is to even try to deal with the chaos, incompetence, and excessive demands surrounding Team Palin. But what I found especially interesting about this was the subtext: the Republican Party may love Palin's ability to whip the base into a frenzy, but it doesn't mind dishing to the media about how ill prepared she is to lead or have real responsibilities. Jonathan Bernstein had a good piece on this, noting the importance of the underlying politics behind stories like these: "always think about why people talk to reporters, and why these particular sources talked to this reporter about this particular topic."
Something to keep an eye on as Palin gears up for 2012. —Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES.... Ben Smith notes in an interesting piece today that at least some of the 2010 elections have "devolved" into a battle "over who's stupid, and who's a snob." Ben raises some fair points, but I'm not sure the premise is persuasive.
The most striking problem with the argument is that Ben questions the utility of Democrats accusing Republicans of being dumb, but proceeds to note exactly zero examples of Democrats accusing Republicans of being dumb. Literally, none. Indeed, it was rather jarring reading the piece. Ben argues, "Waging battle over the Politics of Dumbness may not be smart for Democrats," which may be true. But before we can evaluate whether such a strategy has merit, it's worth appreciating the fact that not one Democrat was mentioned waging a battle over the Politics of Dumbness. Ben notes examples of Republicans being mocked by Maureen Dowd, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, but this group has two things in common: (1) they're all in media, where highlighting politicians' stupidity is expected (two are comedians, where this is practically mandatory); and (2) none of them are Democrats in any formal, organized sense. They're not candidates; they're not campaigning; and they haven't made any endorsements. It's not even clear if all four will be voting for Democrats. If four media figures -- two of whom are on Comedy Central -- are the best examples of "Democrats" mocking Republicans as dumb as "part of their closing argument," then there's almost certainly a problem with the premise. And if the premise is wrong, there's probably no point in arguing further, but I also can't help but wonder: what happens if a candidate, of either party, really is dumb? By that I mean, if there's a genuinely stupid person on the ballot, seeking a powerful public office, is it really so outrageous to think the candidate's rival party and/or opponent might want to make that a campaign issue? Shouldn't voters hear about this before actual morons hold key public offices? Under the circumstances, I think Ben may actually have this backwards -- given some of the conspicuously unintelligent candidates who've won GOP primaries this year, I'm amazed at how much restraint Democrats have shown. The question isn't whether Dems made a mistake mocking Republican idiocy this year; the question is whether Dems made a mistake by neglecting to go after Republican idiocy this year. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
'HOAX'.... Literally every Republican running for the U.S. Senate this year has a problem with climate science, but some are clearly more outrageous than others. All of them reject the evidence, but some are at least willing to concede climbing global temperatures, while balking at the causes. But even within a group of global warming deniers, this is some pretty extreme stuff.
Now, it's unnerving enough for right-wing candidates to simply reject science and reason out of hand, but once we get to the territory of "the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated," we're into some truly mind-numbing nonsense. That his remarks come the same week as data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing 2010 to be tied for "the warmest combined land and ocean surface temperature on record," makes it all the more ridiculous. I'm trying to imagine the scenario that exists in Buck's mind. If he merely said the evidence is "inconclusive" or that he believes there's competing data pointing in another direction, he'd merely be dangerously wrong. But Buck actually endorsed the idea of an elaborate "hoax" -- suggesting he thinks there's an international conspiracy involving countless governments, agencies, scientists, and universities, all of which have gotten together, in secret, to fool the entire planet about climate trends, for some unknown reason. There's literally no evidence of such a convoluted conspiracy -- on the contrary, the evidence actually says global warming is real -- but for Buck and Inhofe, it seems plausible anyway. I haven't been to Colorado in many years, but is this the sort of thing that plays well? A recent report from the National Conference of State Legislatures estimated that Colorado is likely to incur annually "more than $1 billion in losses due to impacts on tourism, forestry, water resources and human health from a predicted drier, warmer climate." Are locals prepared to risk a cataclysm based on Buck's notion of a "hoax"? —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)
COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE APPARENT DADT CONTRADICTION.... At face value, the Obama administration's approach to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" doesn't make sense. On the one hand, President Obama has repeatedly vowed to end the policy, and has pushed Congress to repeal the existing law. On the other hand, the Justice Department continues to fight for DADT in the courts, challenging litigants who the White House presumably agrees with. Complicating matters, while the administration argues that it's simply doing its due diligence in the courts, while waiting for Congress to act, there are many who believe Obama's team is taking steps it need not take. After the law was recently struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court, some DADT critics say, the administration could have just accepted the verdict, rather than appealing. Even Bush's former solicitor general, Ted Olson, who's become surprisingly progressive on LGBT issues, told ABC yesterday that "every once in a while" an administration will accept a lower-court ruling and choose not to appeal. So, what's the real story here? Why would Obama and his team fight to preserve a law they claim to oppose? It no doubt seems unsatisfying to those of us who abhor the policy -- and I really do -- but the AP has a compelling report on what the administration is thinking, and "they must secretly hate gays" isn't the correct explanation.
This is just what administrations are supposed to do, and have done, as part of the legal process. Indeed, Justice Department guidelines -- which, admittedly, are not law, but nevertheless help dictate how the cabinet agency functions -- call on officials to keep defending laws passed by Congress as long as "a reasonable argument can be made in [the law's] support." The "duty to defend" obligations don't necessarily end after a lower-court ruling. Beth Hillman, a constitutional law professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law and who also opposes DADT, also highlighted a larger legal context.
What's more, also note that while supporters of gay rights are outraged by the appeals, anti-gay conservatives are outraged by what they see as the administration's deliberate attempts to lose in court. Ed Whelan insisted the Justice Department is "only pretending to mount a vigorous defense" of DADT, while Elaine Donnelly, arguably the nation's leading supporter of military discrimination, argued that President Obama is actually "determined" to end the existing policy by losing in the courts on purpose. I can't speak to the veracity of right's allegations, but I can say I truly loathe the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" status quo. It's discriminatory, expensive, offensive, and quite literally dangerous. I anxiously look forward to the day when Congress clears the way for repeal -- a day that could come quickly, if literally just a few Senate Republicans showed a little decency. But as much as I abhor the current DADT law, everything I've seen suggests the administration's legal efforts are defensible. Update: Yale Law School's Robert Burt, who also opposes DADT, added, "If there is an act of Congress, it seems reasonable to me to say that it binds the president and he must faithfully execute it. It is within the president's discretion to say that the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans is so clear that there's no point in appealing. But that's not the case here: there have been conflicts among district courts and courts of appeal that have looked at this statute." —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)
WHAT ELSE ROVE SAID.... Much of the attention surrounding Karl Rove's remarks to Germany's Der Spiegel has focused on his description of Tea Partiers as "not sophisticated" -- a remark that isn't going over well in some far-right circles. But there were some other interesting exchanges, too.
But that's absurd. Birthers are pushing imaginary, racially-tinged garbage that has no foundation in reality. Those who questioned the 2000 recount in Florida actually have a strong case -- had all the ballots been counted, of even if the "butterfly" ballot hadn't existed, Bush would have lost the electoral college, just as we know he lost the popular vote. There's just no comparison here. But more importantly, questions about Bush's dubious legitimacy quickly vanished, especially after 9/11. I don't recall Gephardt's interview from before Bush's inauguration, but whatever he said, the White House certainly didn't have to endure such questions "for eight years." There was also this exchange:
Rove's larger point was about the transition groups face as they realize the "system produces mostly incremental progress and takes time and compromise." That said, comparing Tea Partiers to these other, actual political movements is silly. We knew exactly what the civil rights movement wanted -- they highlighted a system social injustice and presented a moral/legal remedy. Similarly, there were no ambiguities about the agendas and beliefs of anti-war protestors, opponents of abortion rights, or NRA members. The difference is Tea Partiers are an amorphous group of zealots who don't necessarily agree with one another. Their demands, such as they are, are ambiguous and contradictory. By no reasonable definition are we talking about a real "movement" -- this is a group of confused, easily manipulated activists with no real leadership, expertise, policy agenda, clarity of thought, or internal structure, made up almost entirely of the most hysterical wing of the Republican Party base. For Rove to even mention these guys in the same sentence as the civil rights movement is ridiculous. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * In Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Pat Toomey's (R) lead over Joe Sestak (D) shrinking to just two points, 48% to 46%. Muhlenberg's tracking poll, meanwhile, shows the two tied at 43% each. * Speaking of Pennsylvania, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Tom Corbett's (R) lead over Dan Onorato (D) also shrinking to just two points, 48% to 46%. Nearly every other recent poll, however, shows Corbett with a much larger lead. * In Illinois' U.S. Senate race, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Mark Kirk (R) leading Alexi Giannoulias (D), 42% to 40%. The pollster's analysis said the biggest problem is Democratic voters who may not show up, handing the seat to Republicans. * In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows Rand Paul's (R) lead over Jack Conway (D) shrinking to five points, 48% to 43%. * Going into October, the RNC had $3.4 million in cash on hand -- about $10 million less than the DNC. * In Alaska's U.S. Senate race, a new Time/CNN poll shows Republicans Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski tied with 37% each, followed by Scott McAdams at 23%. * In Florida's U.S. Senate race, a new Time/CNN poll shows Republican Marco Rubio (R) continuing to pull away, leading Gov. Charlie Crist (I) by 14 points. The same poll shows a more competitive gubernatorial race, with Rick Scott (R) narrowly leading Alex Sink (D), 49% to 46%. * Did Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) run afoul of his own campaign finance law by using his coffers to run an ad for a different candidate? It sure looks like it. * On a related note, it seems as if Linda McMahon's (R) Senate campaign in Connecticut is coordinating its efforts with McMahon's wrestling company, which is also illegal. * In California, a new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows Jerry Brown (D) leading Meg Whitman (R) in the gubernatorial race, 44% to 36%, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading Carly Fiorina (R), 43% to 37%. * In New York's gubernatorial race, Carl Paladino (R) has seen the bottom fall out of his statewide support, and the latest Siena poll shows him trailing Andrew Cuomo (D) by 37 points, 63% to 26%. Nearly 7 in 10 New Yorkers have an unfavorable view of the GOP nominee. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
SHINING A LIGHT ON ISSUE THAT MATTERS.... For a couple of weeks, a wide variety of pundits have said Democrats are making a mistake focusing on undisclosed contributions fueling Republicans in the midterms. Much of the political establishment has concluded that of all the issues on voters' minds, no one really cares about secret, possibly foreign, campaign donations. There's been at least some evidence to suggest the pundits are wrong, and more evidence continues to arrive. Take the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, for example.
The poll noted, of course, that the "overall dynamics" of the cycle haven't necessarily changed as a result of these concerns, at least not yet, but the results nevertheless show that voters do care. Indeed, the same poll asked whether respondents believe the parties are more interested in the concerns of average Americans or the needs of large corporations. At this point, Dems have benefitted, as more of the public perceives them as being on the side of the public, while a large majority believe Republicans are beholden to big business. Greg Sargent, who's been following this as closely (and as well) as anyone in media, added:
What's more, it's certainly resonating with Democratic donors -- as far-right entities collect secret cash hand over fist, rank-and-file Dems are grabbing their checkbooks to help their party compete in the campaign's final weeks. I suspect most pundits will continue to scoff, but there's every reason to believe this offensive against undisclosed contributions fueling the GOP has been entirely worthwhile. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
DETAILS, SCHMETAILS IN WISCONSIN.... Wisconsin's Republican Senate nominee, right-wing millionaire Ron Johnson, doesn't much care for substantive policy details. What's more, he's hoping his disregard for specifics is seen as one of his strengths. Johnson's chat with the Green Bay Press Gazette's editorial board the other day offered a high-profile example. The editors wanted to know about his plan to create jobs, and Johnson just ended up shrugging his shoulders. He vowed to cut some form of spending at some point by some undetermined amount. This, Johnson said, was his "jobs plan." But this kind of approach to policy problems keeps coming up.
He used nearly identical language at another forum, telling voters, "I don't believe this election is about details. I really don't." Johnson is of the "figure it out later" mold. Wisconsin may not know him very well, but if folks vote for him anyway, he'll try to come up with good ideas eventually. How would Johnson create jobs? He doesn't know, but if voters support him, he'll figure it out later. Why does he think "sunspots" generate global warming? He doesn't know, but if voters support him, he'll figure it out later. How should the nation provide for veterans? He doesn't know, but if voters support him, he'll figure it out later. How would Social Security work if he successfully privatizes it? He doesn't know, but if voters support him, he'll figure it out later. This is, by the way, the same Ron Johnson who was asked last week what kind of innovative ideas he might pursue as a U.S. senator. Johnson skipped right past substantive issues, and committed himself to a "re-education of America." Maybe Johnson should be more interested in a "re-education" of himself? For what it's worth, this is wearing thin on some in Wisconsin. The Green Bay Press Gazette's editorial board, almost immediately after chatting with Johnson, endorsed incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold (D). It was the first time the paper has ever supported one of Feingold's campaigns. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
THE MISJUDGMENTS OF A POOR PROSECUTOR.... There's been a fair amount of attention lately on Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck's (R) handling of a 2005 rape case, and with good reason. The extremist candidate chose not to prosecute what appeared to be a horrible, violent crime in which the rapist practically confessed to local police. As Buck saw it, a jury might think the rape victim was merely suffering from "buyer's remorse," since she'd invited her attacker into her home. But it's not the only case in which Buck's judgment has come into question. Bob Barr had an item in the Denver Post this week on Buck's handling of a gun case. Barr has a unique perspective -- he's a former Republican congressman, a former federal prosecutor, and a board member of the NRA -- so his criticism is especially noteworthy.
But that's what Buck did, quietly revealing details to the defense and undermining his own office's case against criminals. Buck was then reprimanded by the Justice Department for his ethical and professional lapses, which in turn led to his resignation. Barr noted that his behavior "raises legitimate concerns about ethics, professionalism and loyalty in one of the most sensitive of public jobs." The issue is still largely below the radar, though it's the subject of some new campaign advertising in Colorado. I've long questioned Ken Buck's judgment. He does, after all, support repealing the 17th Amendment, privatizing Social Security, eliminating the Department of Education, scrapping the federal student loan program, and has even said liberals are a bigger threat than terrorists. Yesterday, Buck insisted the entirety of climate science is an elaborate hoax, which is insane. But the basis for Buck's entire campaign is that he's been a capable prosecutor -- and even that claim now appears dubious, at best. —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
RUSH VS. ROVE.... Just a couple of months ago, Rush Limbaugh tapped Karl Rove to be a guest-host for his right-wing radio program, suggesting the two are fairly close, if not personally, than at least ideologically. But there are some lines of division, even among powerful far-right media personalities. In a recent interview, Rove noted that Tea Partiers are "not sophisticated," an observation that seems more than fair. Limbaugh didn't quite see it that way.
This isn't the first time Rove has annoyed the GOP's extremist base with observations that seemed incontrovertibly true. A month ago, Rove dismissed Christine O'Donnell as a "nutty" candidate who's very likely to lose. Far-right activists were extremely unhappy with the remarks, and Rove quickly backpedaled. This is, I suspect, evidence of genuine tensions between the Republican establishment and its foot-soldiers, which certainly bears watching, especially after the midterms. But I'm not sure either Rove or Limbaugh are correct. They both consider Tea Party zealots to be part of a powerful, bottom-up movement, though I think the evidence is equally strong that we're just talking about an agitated Republican base with a different brand name, led by the nose by corporate lobbyists, Dick Armey, Fox News, and the Republican Party that needs extremists' enthusiasm to win elections. Regardless, the next step will be watching to see if Rove apologizes, as Republicans who upset Limbaugh are generally expected to do. —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
WHEN THE ANTI-IMMIGRANT CROWD EXEMPTS WHITE PEOPLE.... Arizona's odious anti-immigrant bill has inspired far-right lawmakers to push related proposals in states nationwide, but state Rep. William Snyder (R) in Florida seems to have a unique spin on the issue. In Arizona, of course, when local law enforcement officials have "reasonable suspicions" that someone may have entered the country illegally, suspects are expected to prove their citizenship status. Of course, as a practical matter, "reasonable suspicions" effectively means "being darker than a manila envelope." In Florida, Snyder insists that he opposes racial profiling, but the closer one looks at his proposal, the harder that is to believe.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott has already endorsed Snyder's proposal, and has vowed to support it if elected. Asked in a recent radio interview about the provision, Snyder said it's intended to be "comfort language" for "Canadians wintering here in Florida." First, winter is not a verb. Second, as a South Florida native, I know from experience that plenty of families from throughout Latin America spend their summers in the state, too. Do they not deserve "comfort language," or is Snyder deliberately trying to undermine the tourism industry Florida is so dependent upon? And third, Alex Pareene added sarcastically, "I guess Canadians and Europeans are never in the U.S., on expired or no visas, working jobs illegally. It's just the Mexicans." —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
JUAN WILLIAMS BOOTED FROM NPR.... NPR has never seemed entirely comfortable with Juan Williams' propensity for nonsense when he appears on Fox News. Last year, for example, less than a week after President Obama's inauguration, Williams lashed out at First Lady Michelle Obama, calling her an "albatross" with a "Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going." Soon after, NPR insisted that Williams no longer identify himself on Fox News as a "senior correspondent for NPR," though that was his title. This week, that discomfort reached a new level, to the point that NPR chose to sever the relationship altogether.
At issue is Monday night's episode of Bill O'Reilly's Fox News episode. The host went on yet another anti-Muslim tirade, insisting there's "a Muslim problem in the world," and the "Muslim threat to the world is not isolated." He sought Williams' approval, and received it. Williams told O'Reilly he's "right," adding "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." Williams went on to say, "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot.... But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." In candor, this kind of talk seems so routine on Fox News, I didn't really expect Williams to face any punishment. I hope reasonable people can agree his remarks were ugly and narrow-minded, but this is Fox News. Williams' anti-Muslim sentiment is expressed in various forms throughout the day, every day, on the network. There are no consequences because it's expected -- intolerance and prejudice from Fox News personalities are just par for the course. The difference with Williams, though, is that he wears more than one hat. On Fox News, he's a token "liberal" who isn't liberal, free to make ridiculous on-air observations. On NPR, he's a less contentious political analyst, who strives for some degree of credibility. But the tension was always problematic. When Williams was back at his NPR home, the audience was supposed to simply forget that this was the same guy they heard earlier on making offensive remarks on television. It was an untenable relationship. And so Williams joins Rick Sanchez in the recently-ousted-for-ugly-intolerance club. The group would be larger if Fox News executive cared about such things, but bigotry goes unpunished at the Republican cable news network. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)
THE MARIJUANA-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.... When Californians go to the polls on November 2nd to vote on Proposition 19 -- officially known as the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act -- they will not only be deciding whether to make marijuana legal in the most populous state in the union. They'll also be determining the shape of a large and potentially powerful new American industry. In his new article, "The Closing of the Marijuana Frontier," John Gravois offers a vivid, authoritative portrait of the existing black market economy of cannabis production in Northern California, where prohibition has created a bizarre refuge of the old American agrarian ideal. Outlaw farmers in rural marijuana strongholds are trying to brand themselves as the new Napa Valley of pot, where day-tripping connoisseurs might one day sample organic, sustainably grown weed at a premium. In such a system, the profits and power from the state's largest cash crop would remain in the hands of thousands of small producers -- an outcome Thomas Jefferson might have cheered. But that vision is already being undermined by political deals cut by some of Prop 19's biggest backers: the prominent urban middlemen who increasingly control pot distribution in the existing medical marijuana retail market. Their efforts favor a much more consolidated and centralized industry, one that could set us on a path towards a world of marijuana lobbying groups, Super Bowl spots for "Marlboro Greens," and a cannabis sector that cannot be easily controlled by the democratic process. To read the article, click here. —Steve Benen 7:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
October 20, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Afghanistan: "Talks to end the war in Afghanistan involve extensive, face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the highest levels of the group's leadership, who are secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO troops, officials here say." * The British brand of conservatism sure sounds familiar: "The British government on Wednesday unveiled the country's steepest public spending cuts in more than 60 years, reducing costs in government departments by an average of 19 percent, sharply curtailing welfare benefits, raising the retirement age to 66 by 2020 and eliminating hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs in an effort to bring down the bloated budget deficit." * A possible shift in Palestinian strategy: "The Palestinian leadership, near despair about attaining a negotiated agreement with Israel on a two-state solution, is increasingly focusing on how to get international bodies and courts to declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem." * When corporations use the Affordable Care Act to justify scaling back employee benefits, remember, they're lying. * Remember, while it's important that Karl Rove is using secret donations to buy elections with anti-Democratic attack ads, it's also important that Rove's operations are using those attack ads to blatantly lie to the public. * From now on, when conservatives hyperventilate about George Soros helping finance Media Matters, they won't be lying. As for why Soros investments are supposed to be considered controversial, I still haven't the foggiest idea. * It was good to see President Obama sign an executive order yesterday intended to improve the education of Hispanic students. * A Republican congressional candidate was asked this week to name a recent Supreme Court ruling he disagreed with. He pointed to the Dred Scott decision, which was issued 153 years ago. * Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-La.) is so worried about re-election, has said he'd consider supporting Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker. * A radical right-wing group in Colorado has released an ad describing President Obama as "the Angel of Death." Classy. * Ta-Nehisi Coates had a beautiful item today on the culture of poverty. Take a few minutes to read it. * Maybe it's time for more consistently reliable fact-checking websites. * And former President George W. Bush is still keeping a very low profile, but he showed up recently at an Alabama fundraiser, and conceded, "I miss being pampered." And I'm reminded why I don't miss him. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
NOT A BAD RETURN ON A COSTLY INVESTMENT, CONT'D.... I continue to think the debate over the utility, merit, and structure of the TARP program is entirely fair and worth having. But wherever one falls on the substance, I also continue to think we should all feel some relief over its price tag. The New York Times recently noted that the final cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program "could end up costing far less" than expected, "or even nothing." Bloomberg takes a closer look today at just the financial industry aspect of the 2008 rescue bill, and finds American taxpayers making a profit on their investment.
I realize there's a political toxicity involved with the bailout that doesn't exist on almost any other issue, but part of me wonders whether there's a partisan line the Obama White House and congressional Democrats could have tried but didn't: Bush and Republicans agreed to give a whole lot of your money to Wall Street, while Obama and Democrats made sure Wall Street paid that money back. When Bush sent the money out the door, we thought we'd never see it again; when Obama collected on Wall Street's debts, the American taxpayers made a profit. Since everyone involved would just as soon forget TARP ever happened, I don't really expect to anyone to actually make this argument. But I often wonder whether an effort to spin the rescue as a positive could have changed public attitudes, at least a little. —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
THE PROBLEM WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT.... Back in July, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) lamented the notion that Democrats are "snuffing out the America that I grew up in." In other words, Boehner remembers the 1950s and 1960s - he was born in '49 -- and wishes the country were more like it was then. There were more than a few problems with his assessment, but what was striking was to remember how extraordinarily liberal the country was, at least economically, when Boehner was "growing up." The top marginal tax rate was 90% (nearly triple today's figure); union membership was 30% (more than quadruple today's figure); the Republican Party, which included plenty of liberals, endorsed massive spending projects; and the economy was heavily regulated -- airlines didn't even set their own prices. And perhaps most importantly, the chasm between the rich and poor wasn't nearly as wide as it is now. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, the gap between the richest 1% and the middle and poorest fifths of the country "more than tripled between 1979 and 2007." We have greater income concentration at the top of the income scale now than at any point since 1928. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told the United Steelworkers that she thinks such dramatic income disparities are bad for the country. And here's how Fox News responded to the very idea that this is a social issue worthy of officials' attention:
If you even mention the gap between rich and poor, the Republican response is knee-jerk: socialism. It doesn't matter what these income disparities mean for the economy, for our social fabric, for Americans' ability to get ahead -- what matters is making sure no one is even allowed to consider this an issue worth addressing. And as Jon Chait added, "By the way, [the screen shot] was taken during the 'straight news' portion of Fox News, not the opinion portion. Just so you can keep it straight." [Update: Reader B.G. reminds me that Chait may be wrong about this one -- last year, Fox News conceded that "Fox & Friends" is not considered part of the network's "news" programming.] —Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
WHAT POPULISM ISN'T.... About a week ago, in a rather classic example of why I think the notion of conservative populism is silly on a fundamental level, Glenn Beck urged his followers today to start sending donations directly to corporate interests so the U.S. Chamber of Commerce can buy more elections for far-right candidates. The minions took their orders well -- the Chamber's online donation page crashed after regular folks tried to give their money to the already-extremely-wealthy business lobby. Dana Milbank fleshes this out today in a little more detail, and explains just how twisted the larger political dynamic really is.
Karl Rove recently conceded that the Tea Party crowd just "is not sophisticated," and I'm inclined to agree. We're dealing with a group of sincere but deeply confused ideologues who are just ignorant enough to be exploited, shamelessly, by interest groups and corporate lobbyists who'd never be able to earn genuine grassroots support. They've found a group of energetic suckers, and they're manipulating these folks for all their worth. That Beck stunt was, however, truly extraordinary. The Chamber didn't even have to lift a finger -- a deranged media personality told his audience, many of whom are middle-class and having a tough time in a struggling economy, to start throwing money at one of the nation's wealthiest lobbying groups. And these folks did as they were told, voluntarily handing over donations to some of the country's richest corporations. Why? So these corporations could elect candidates who will, in turn, favor policies that hurt the middle class, undermine workers and consumers, and boost these businesses' profits. Better yet, these same Tea Partiers -- folks who feel like they've been getting screwed by unaccountable, powerful interests -- are also rallying behind multi-millionaire candidates this year, who'll work on issues like eliminating the estate tax for the extremely wealthy. Milbank concluded, "A movement of the plutocrats, by the political professionals and for the powerful: Now that's something Tea Partyers should be mad about." And maybe if they were, in Rove's words, more "sophisticated," they would be. As things stand, I can only assume Republican leaders and their far-right allies spend most of their time laughing hysterically at these zealots, wondering how in the world they managed to find such dupes. —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
PAY SOME ATTENTION TO THAT PARTY BEHIND THE CURTAIN.... This year, just about every sentence uttered by Republican candidates includes a noun, a verb, and a pledge to "cut spending." There's ample evidence voters actually like this sort of rhetoric, just so long as there are no specifics about what spending would get cut. There are, of course, a few problems with the GOP argument. The first, as noted in this helpful NYT piece from David Herszenhorn, is that Republicans won't actually commit to any detailed proposal.
The second is that the kind of cuts the GOP has in mind almost certainly won't happen.
The third is that the idea of cuts is intended to bolster Republicans' credibility on fiscal responsibility, but the GOP doesn't want to cut spending to lower the deficit; it wants to cut spending while slashing taxes by $4 trillion -- all of which would be deficit financed.
And finally, there's the inconvenient fact that Republicans believe the federal budget is a huge mess, but seem to overlook the fact that it's a mess they created.
Read that last sentence again. For all the over-the-top whining about the costs of health care reform, the Recovery Act, and the financial industry rescue, all of those costs combined are less than the Republicans' prescription-drug bill (which was passed under corrupt circumstances, and which the GOP didn't even try to pay for). For that matter, if Republicans successfully repealed the Affordable Care Act, that would make the budget outlook even worse, since health care reform reduces the deficit. Just a little something to keep in mind as Republican candidates lecture voters about how responsible they are with the public's money. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
KOCH BROTHERS PLAN AHEAD.... I realize there are plenty of liberal Americans who genuinely fear a right-wing conspiracy, featuring right-wing zillionaires who meet in private resorts to plot, scheme, and shape agendas to undermine the public and boost their own profits. But what's that old joke? You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you?
Though the story only touches on this briefly, these are the same Koch Brothers who are helping buy the midterms for Republicans this year, and who are apparently so pleased with themselves that they're ready to plot future successes. Also note, this isn't just about partisan politics, though it's obvious the Kochs and the cohorts are intent on boosting the GOP. It's also about, as the invitation to the confab puts it, "review[ing] strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." Yes, these nutjobs actually use language like this, even when they think no one will see it. And what are these policies that must be crushed? Addressing climate change, repairing our dysfunctional health care system, and a regulatory system that looks out for workers and consumers. It sounds a bit like a Dickensian cliche -- powerful fat-cats will huddle in secret at a posh resort, dining on fine cuisine while being waited on hand and foot, to complain bitterly about how rough they have it, and while plotting on how best to destroy those who might interfere with their already-huge profits. Indeed, Charles Koch says in his invitation that "prosperity is under attack" by the Obama administration. Of course, Charles Koch is worth more than $21 billion, and given Wall Street's returns last year, he's probably seen his wealth grow considerably since the president was sworn in. In fairness, I should note that it's not especially surprising that these events happen. For that matter, wealthy liberals get together on occasion to bounce around ideas, too. But I do care that the Kochs' gatherings include powerful far-right officials, including Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Paul Waldman noted, "[I]magine if it were discovered that among the participants at the Democracy Alliance meetings were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- that two sitting Supreme Court justices were getting together with top liberal donors to plot political strategy. To say there would be outrage would be an understatement. Forget about all the fulminating about 'activist judges' on Fox News and conservative talk radio that would ensue. Republicans would almost certainly propose impeaching the two justices, arguing, with some justification, that it is grossly improper for members of the Supreme Court to be participating in such plainly political activities." And yet, here we are. Postcript: ThinkProgress has much more on the Koch Brothers' efforts, including their work in shaping the 2010 cycle. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... There's nothing quite as bewildering as listening to the right try to explain their hostility towards modern science. On his radio show today, Glenn Beck pondered the significance of biology. "I don't think we came from monkeys," he told listeners. "I think that's ridiculous. I haven't seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? There's no other species that is developing into half-human?" This got me thinking about a story President Obama told about a year ago, after he returned from a trip to Asia. He shared an anecdote about a luncheon he attended with the president of South Korea. "I was interested in education policy -- they've grown enormously over the last 40 years," Obama said. "And I asked him, 'What are the biggest challenges in your education policy?' He said, 'The biggest challenge that I have is that my parents are too demanding.' He said, 'Even if somebody is dirt poor, they are insisting that their kids are getting the best education.' He said, 'I've had to import thousands of foreign teachers because they're all insisting that Korean children have to learn English in elementary school.' That was the biggest education challenge that he had, was an insistence, a demand from parents for excellence in the schools. "And the same thing was true when I went to China. I was talking to the mayor of Shanghai, and I asked him about how he was doing recruiting teachers, given that they've got 25 million people in this one city. He said, 'We don't have problems recruiting teachers because teaching is so revered and the pay scales for teachers are actually comparable to doctors and other professions. ' "That gives you a sense of what's happening around the world. There is a hunger for knowledge, an insistence on excellence, a reverence for science and math and technology and learning. That used to be what we were about." Yes, it was. Now, one of the nation's most influential media personalities tells his minions, "I haven't seen a half-monkey, half-person yet," as part of an effort to get conservatives to continue to reject the foundation of modern biology. We all hear talk from time to time about "American decline," but I hope people appreciate the ways in which stupidity spreads like a cancer, undermining our ability to thrive, prosper, and compete in the world. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (74)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * In Wisconsin's U.S. Senate race, a new Wisconsin Public Radio poll shows a more competitive race, with Ron Johnson's (R) lead shrinking to just two points over Sen. Russ Feingold (D), 49% to 47%. * In Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, following up on a PPP poll showing the Democrat inching ahead, a new Morning Call/Muhlenberg College Tracker poll shows Rep. Joe Sestak (D) with a narrow lead over former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), 44% to 41%. * In the state of Washington, polls have continue to show Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading Dino Rossi (R) in her re-election bid, but the gap has narrowed considerably. A new survey from Public Policy Polling puts Murray's lead at just two points, 49% to 47%, while a McClatchy poll shows her up by just one, 48% to 47%. * In Missouri's U.S. Senate race, did Rep. Roy Blunt (R) hire an immigrant who entered the country illegally? Maybe. * In a very effective ad in California's gubernatorial race, Jerry Brown (D) is noting the eerie similarities between Meg Whitman's (R) rhetoric and that of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). * In Oregon's gubernatorial race, a new PPP poll for Daily Kos shows former Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) leading retired basketball player Chris Dudley (R) by just one point, 48% to 47%. * In North Carolina's U.S. Senate race, PPP shows Elaine Marshall (D) closing the gap a bit against Sen. Richard Burr (R), but the incumbent still leads by eight, 48% to 40%. * We can probably stop paying attention to Ohio's U.S. Senate race, where a new Quinnipiac poll shows former Bush Budget Director Rob Portman (R) leading Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D), 55% to 34%. * In Utah's U.S. Senate race, a Deseret News/KSL-TV poll shows Mike Lee (R) leading Sam Granato (D) in the race to replace Sen. Bob Bennett, 53% to 31%. * And in Colorado, Republicans launched an attack ad targeting Rep. Betsy Markey (D) for a vote she didn't cast, because the GOP confused her with Rep. Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts. They're not related. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
MIKE HUCKABEE'S VERY SHORT MEMORY.... Jack Conway's ad in Kentucky about Rand Paul's "Aqua Buddha" has sparked plenty of interesting debate, but one take in particular struck me as amusing.
Yes, Mike Huckabee said, in print, that he disapproves of those who try to "show-off and parade" their faith "for the purpose of getting a vote." I don't mean to sound picky, but Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign ran an ad in 2007 that described him as a "Christian leader," and explained that his faith "defines" him. Soon after, he ran another television ad saying "what really matters" in late December is "the birth of Christ." Huckabee had a bright cross over his shoulder while he was speaking to the camera. Around the same time, Huckabee suggested he personally was God's anointed presidential candidate. We're not exactly talking about a guy who takes Matthew 6:6 to heart. As for Huckabee's assertion that it's truly offensive for political candidates to go after an opponent's faith, it's also worth mentioning that during his presidential campaign, Huckabee went after Mitt Romney's faith, telling the New York Times, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" If Huckabee thinks he has the standing to go after Jack Conway, he must have blocked the entire 2008 presidential campaign from memory. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
A CONCISE SUMMARY OF AN ECONOMIC AGENDA.... Republican Ron Johnson (R), still hopeful about buying Sen. Russ Feingold's (D) Senate seat, has been reluctant to talk too much to journalists, but he agreed to sit down with the editorial board of the Green Bay Press Gazette the other day. One exchange was of particular interest. One of the editors noticed that Johnson, a right-wing millionaire, doesn't have any specific approach to creating jobs, other than "cutting spending." She asked the candidate whether he was prepared to offer a "real jobs plan." Johnson replied, "Bring fiscal discipline to the federal government. You know, we've got to curb spending." Confused, the editor followed up, asking, "So, your jobs plan is to control spending. But what about the middle class?" Johnson literally just shrugs his shoulders, and says, "We have to get the economy moving." I guess there's a reason this guy has been avoiding journalists. That said, Johnson's remarks, while frustrating to watch, nevertheless offer a concise summary of a specific economic agenda, widely embraced by the Republican Party in the wake of the Great Recession. Indeed, the Wisconsin candidate was surprisingly candid -- his plan to create jobs is to not have a plan to create jobs. As Johnson sees it, unemployment may be pushing 10%, but that will come down just as soon as the government takes more money out of the economy and lays off more public workers. What else might help create jobs? Johnson doesn't have an answer. How would cutting spending produce economic growth? Johnson doesn't have an answer. What would he cut as part of his drive for fiscal discipline? Johnson doesn't say. The larger point isn't just that Ron Johnson seems deeply confused about the #1 issue on Americans' minds; the point is that Ron Johnson's economic message is a perfect representation of his party's entire economic message this election season. Republicans have gone from saying spending cuts and public-sector layoffs will help with the deficit to saying these same tactics will inexplicably make the economy better. I know plenty of Americans find this persuasive, but I'm still not sure why. —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY LIVES.... The chairman of the Virginia Beach Republican Party sent around an email this year, sharing a little "joke" he found amusing. His message was that his dog should be eligible for welfare because, as the "joke" goes, the dog is "black, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is." As racist displays go, this is unambiguously ugly, and the local GOP chairman was forced to resign this week. But it's worth contextualizing the incident to appreciate the larger truth. Indeed, it's hard not to notice the broader, more systemic Republican attempts this year to use identity politics to win votes. Rachel Maddow began her show last night with another powerful segment on the subject, noting the Republicans' notorious "Southern Strategy," and the ways in which it hasn't fully gone away. The examples from just this cycle were too many to even feature, though Rachel took note of West Virginia's John Raese's attempts at ethnic "humor," Nevada's Sharron Angle's racist TV ad followed by her telling Hispanic students they look Asian, New York's Carl Paladino's racist emails, Colorado's Tom Tancredo's call for a return to Jim Crow policies, Kentucky's Rand Paul's discomfort with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a variety of Republican House candidates who've embraced elements of white supremacism. What's more, there are plenty of other recent examples that Rachel didn't get to, but which could have been included. All of these could have been "Macaca moments" for Republicans, but politics seems to be playing by different rules this year. Rachel drew a parallel between the current efforts and the Southern Strategy of years past: "Republicans learned strategically, mathematically, that sometimes it makes sense to turn every minority voter against you and have that be the cost you pay to lock up all the white votes. "As Richard Nixon's chief political analyst explained back in 1970, 'The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. And that's where the votes are.' "Does this work in 2010? Does this work in more than just the South? Does this work in what's expected to be a low turnout general election? The Southern Strategy now means floating the Dr. Chow Mein stuff. It means floating the anti-Civil Rights Act arguments. It means floating the racist jokes, bearing the criticism for it, but locking up the white vote in compensation." That's entirely true, and I'd go just a little further. Also note that the Republican Party and its media outlets spent much of the past several months obsessing over "controversies" with unmistakable undertones -- Park51, the New Black Panther Party, Birther nonsense, talk of "liberation theology" -- all of which seemed focused on scaring the bejesus out of white people in an election year. Earlier this year, RNC Chairman Michael Steele conceded that his party relied on a racially-divisive Southern Strategy for at least four decades. He neglected to mention that the party's affinity for the approach never really went away. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
DNC HAMMERS GOP OVER SECRET CAMPAIGN FUNDS.... Pundits continue to argue that Democrats are making a big mistake focusing on undisclosed contributions fueling Republican hopes in the midterms. The argument from the establishment, in a nutshell, is that no one really cares. With at least some evidence that the pundits are wrong, the Democratic National Committee launched this new ad overnight, continuing to hammer the attack ads fueled by secret money. For those of you who can't watch clips from your work computers, a voice-over tells viewers, "You've seen the ads. Millions being spent by right wing groups to buy an election -- all from secret donors. What's not a secret is why. Republicans and their corporate buddies want to be back in charge. Wall Street writing its own rules again. Big oil and Insurance Companies calling the shots. More jobs shipped overseas. Millions in attack ads to put the corporate interests back in charge. "If they're in charge, what happens to you? Fight back." Describing the importance of the ad, DNC spokesperson Brad Woodhouse said, "The debate over the secret money Republican-aligned groups are spending to win the election and the economy is inextricably linked -- because if Republicans win -- they are going to reward this special interest backing by returning to the economic policies of the Bush era that cost eight million Americans their jobs." Pundit criticism notwithstanding, I continue to think this message has merit. For one thing, ads like these make the connection between secretly-financed attack ads and the issue foremost on voters' minds: economic policy. For another, Dems want to put a hint of doubt in voters' minds when it comes to these attack ads. Folks are bound to see the spots financed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and/or Karl Rove's hatchet-job operations. With the right blanketing the airwaves to destroy Democratic candidates, Dems are anxious to have voters ask themselves, "Who paid for that ad? What will they expect in return? And was foreign money involved?" The DNC's ad is set to begin airing on national cable outlets today. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
GINNI THOMAS STAYS AWFULLY BUSY.... The bizarre right-wing activism of Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, has taken on a higher profile this year. As she sees it, "there's a war going on against tyranny," and in her worldview, the tyrants are America's elected leaders. What's more, Thomas heads an activist group that receives massive, undisclosed contributions from secret donors, some of whom may have cases before the high court. But Ginni Thomas is also generating headlines with efforts that seem pretty creepy. ABC News' Jake Tapper had this report late yesterday:
Hill contacted campus police, but it turns out that Thomas really did place the call, saying she was "extending an olive branch" in the hopes of starting a dialog that would lead to an apology. Of course, this isn't just creepy, it's accusatory. There's no reason to assume Hill has anything to apologize for -- if anything, the legal scholar's credibility remains unimpeachable, which is more than we can say about the strange Thomases. What's more, Ginni Thomas' voicemail didn't exactly sound like an olive branch. She called Hill's office at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9 -- a Saturday morning -- to reiterate her assumption that Hill was lying, when there's no evidence to point to such a conclusion. The whole thing is so bizarre, I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around it. Is Ginni Thomas trying to embarrass her husband? Is she trying to get her name in the media to help with her activist fundraising? Does she think her husband was lying, and left the voicemail as some kind of bizarre coping mechanism? For her part, Hill told the NYT, "I appreciate that no offense was intended, but she can't ask for an apology without suggesting that I did something wrong, and that is offensive." —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)
LIMBAUGH PLAYS CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR.... The significance of Christine O'Donnell's ignorance about the separation of church and state goes beyond just pointing and laughing. There's a striking push this year among right-wing candidates to attack constitutional principles -- all the while, running as "constitutional conservatives" -- an assault that is likely to continue if they make significant gains in the midterm elections. In this particular case, O'Donnell asked during a debate at a law school, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" While that may not have been too unusual for conservatives, when Chris Coons reminded her of the constitutional language, she asked, "That's in the First Amendment?" Of course, Nevada's Sharron Angle, who actually has a strong chance of winning, has made very similar remarks, and yesterday, Rush Limbaugh endorsed the nonsense -- which suggests Republicans everywhere will be expected to agree.
Limbaugh added that liberals have interpreted the First Amendment to mean "that religious people cannot be in government." I knew there was a reason government had been overrun by atheists. Given where I used to work many years ago, this is a subject of particular interest. The right has been saying that church-state separation isn't in the Constitution for a very long time -- the Limbaugh/O'Donnell/Angle line isn't new, though O'Donnell took it a little further than most -- but reality is stubborn.
One can obviously read the Constitution and see that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" isn't there, but a basic understanding of history and the law makes clear that the phrase is a shorthand to describe what the First Amendment does -- it separates church from state. Indeed, a variety of constitutional principles we all know and recognize aren't literally referenced in the text. Americans' "right to a fair trial" is well understood, but the exact phrase isn't in the Constitution. "Separation of powers" is a basic principle of the U.S. Constitution, but it isn't mentioned, either. More to the point, you can look for the phrase "freedom of religion" in the First Amendment, but those three words also don't appear. Ultimately, if you're relying on extremist candidates and right-wing media personalities for constitutional scholarship, you're going to be deeply confused. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)
October 19, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * China rattles global investors: "China's central bank unexpectedly announced Tuesday that it would raise interest rates for the first time in nearly three years, apparently in the hopes of dampening inflation and cooling off this country's hot property market." * Violence at the Chechen Parliament: "Heavily armed gunmen burst into the Parliament of Chechnya in southern Russia on Tuesday morning, killing at least three people and wounding more than a dozen others before they were killed by police or by their own explosives, officials said." * Someone shot at the Pentagon shortly before 5 a.m. this morning, possibly using a high-powered rifle. No one was injured, and for now, authorities are considering this "a random event." * As of this afternoon, U.S. military recruiters are required to accept the applications of gays and lesbians who wish to join the military. Those same recruiters will have to inform those joining, however, that DADT may be re-imposed fairly soon. * A far-right group hoping to deliberately suppress the Hispanic vote in Nevada will not be able to purchase airtime on Univision. * With undisclosed millions poised to deliver huge gains for Republicans, there's a reason Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are laughing at their critics. * Extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) thinks terrorists have entered the U.S. through Canada. That's completely wrong, and Canadian officials aren't happy about Angle's ignorance. * Repealing health care reform really isn't as easy as the right might think. * Students with cerebral disabilities are enrolling in colleges in greater numbers, and even if they don't get a degree, the education will help these young people be more competitive in the job market. * Juan Williams is afraid of Muslims on airplanes. He seemed unembarrassed about saying this on national television. * And we talked earlier about Christine O'Donnell's lack of familiarity with the separation of church and state, but seeing the video -- and hearing the audience marvel at the extent of her stupidity -- really helps capture the moment in ways the printed text cannot. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
WE'LL GET THERE FAST AND THEN WE'LL TAKE IT SLOW.... It's always good to see stimulus success stories.
Obviously, when a community's unemployment rate is above 13%, it's not exactly thriving. But in this Indiana town, new jobs have been created, investments are being made, and plants that were closed are starting to get back into gear. Even the downtown area has been revitalized thanks to another stimulus program.
If I were advising Democrats, I'd be talking about communities like Kokomo quite a bit. And if I were a Democratic candidate in Indiana, I'd be asking Republican candidates why they opposed the one piece of legislation that rescued this community from collapse. * Postscript: Was the headline too subtle? Or too corny? —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
THE TAX CUT THAT WASN'T NOTICED.... In his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Obama noted the tax cuts in the Recovery Act. Conservatives who usually applaud such things seemed annoyed. Shortly after the speech, National Review ran one piece that said the "strained credulity" with the claim. The same outlet ran another item insisting, "If the taxes of 95 percent of Americans actully [sic] had been cut, surely somebody other than Obama would have noticed." For the right, this seemed to be a matter of opinion. Obama says he cut taxes for millions of Americans, but since people didn't really notice, the argument goes, then maybe it didn't happen. But there was an objective truth here. Democrats passed one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in the history of the country, and Republicans voted against it and fought to kill it. As it turns out, though, even those inclined to like tax cuts aren't inclined to give the president or Congress any credit for this, because they missed the news entirely.
Mr. Paratore was certain that his federal taxes had gone up, when in reality, they'd gone down. It's not subjective -- he can go back and look at his paystubs and see that his taxes were reduced when Obama signed the Recovery Act into law. But even when talking to a reporter, his first instinct was to say the exact opposite of what really happened. The point, of course, is not to pick on one guy at a Republican rally, because he's obviously not the only one who's confused. Less than 10% of the country knows about the tax cuts, while about a third of the population thinks their federal tax burden went up, even though it didn't. Oddly enough, this was not entirely an accident. In fact, the tax cut was designed to be subtle -- rebate checks tend to be saved, not spent, so Obama made it so that everyone's paychecks would simply be a little higher every pay period -- an average of about $65 a month, for the typical family -- hoping that more people would be more likely to spend that extra bit, and for the most part, it was effective. But what makes for good policy often has no bearing on politics or public opinion. Obama could have gone with rebate checks that would have been better noticed, but the policy result would have been worse. The president chose to go with an approach that worked better, but paid fewer political dividends. Indeed, almost immediately after Obama signed one of the largest tax cuts in American history, right-wing zealots started organizing rallies to announce they're Taxed Enough Already. The disconnect didn't seem to bother them, because they didn't understand their own issues, and weren't paying close enough attention to know the president had just given them a tax break. Jonathan Cohn added, "[T}he political implications seem pretty clear. Obama gets a lot of blame for things he didn't do wrong and very little credit for things he did right. It's not the best place to be on the eve of midterm elections." —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
ALL WE HAVE TO FEAR IS, ANTI-EMPIRICISM ITSELF.... President Obama spoke at event in Boston over the weekend, and made an observation that struck me as rather obvious.
This hardly struck me as especially noteworthy. Indeed, it didn't even sound especially new, since I think the president has made similar remarks before. What's more, everything Obama said seems plainly true -- we're a resilient country, but conditions are still awful for so many. Facts, science, evidence, and reason seem to be under siege right now, but when people are overcome with anxiety, their judgment is sometimes clouded. As it happens, the right heard it a little differently. Bush speechwriter-turned-columnist Michael Gerson was disgusted, calling the president's remarks "some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president." National Review and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal are at least pretending to be outraged, too. It's fascinating how Bushies in the media, National Review, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and their collective cohorts always seem to take an interest in the same obscure story at the same time. It's almost as if there were some kind of coordination going on. Regardless, reading their complaints, it's not altogether clear what has Republicans so annoyed, but it seems to be the president's contention that "facts and science and argument" aren't doing especially well right now. But why is that so outrageous? As Jon Chait noted, "I can see why conservatives would be insulted at the suggestion that they don't have facts and science and argument on their side. But, well, they don't." It's not the president's fault the right has abandoned reason and rejected the premise of empiricism, so there's no point in them complaining about Obama pointing this out. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
BLAMING THE FUTURE FOR THE PAST.... Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania this year, thinks he has a firm grasp on economic policy. He took his case to a group of voters the other day, explaining why he thinks the economy is in rough shape.
Apparently, it's harder than it should be, since Toomey's entire approach is gibberish. It's almost as if the poor man has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. His indictment is amusing in its absurdity. To hear Toomey tell it, rescuing Wall Street and American auto manufacturers was bad for the economy, though reality suggests the opposite is true. Toomey thinks we've "nationalized whole industries," which isn't at all true. He also thinks deficits are undermining the economy, which is (a) wrong; and (b) at odds with his vow to add trillions to the debt through tax cuts for millionaires. But it's that other sentence that really stands out. For Pat Toomey, the recovery has been weak because of "cap and trade, card check, government-run health care." But none of those things exist. The cap-and-trade proposal didn't pass, and neither did card check. Health care reform passed, but it's barely begun to be implemented, and no sensible person could characterize it as "government-run health care." In other words, in Toomey's bizarre worldview, policies that don't exist and couldn't pass are somehow dragging down the economy. In Grown-Up Land, job losses are the result of a deep recession, which was the result of economic policies Pat Toomey supported. He has a few rhetorical choices here -- my personal preference would be to hear Toomey apologize for having been so wrong, so often -- but blaming legislation that hasn't passed isn't one of them. I realize the parties don't agree on much, but can we at least agree that it's literally impossible for laws that don't exist to undermine the world's largest economy? Toomey isn't well grounded -- the man blames FDR for the Great Depression -- but this doesn't seem like too much to ask. —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SHUTDOWN.... Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on Fox News this morning, and was asked, "What about this idea of shutting down the government? ... Have you heard any candidates out there saying that that's what they want to do? That that's what they're going to do once they get to Washington?" Steele replied, "I have not heard any candidates say that." Maybe he's not listening, because all kinds of Republican candidates have been saying exactly that. Some have been demanding a shutdown, and when CNN pressed House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on the issue of a shutdown, he refused to answer either way. The question to me isn't whether House Republicans would push the government towards a shutdown; the question to me is which issue they'll use to make it happen. The most common assumption is that the GOP will pick a fight over health care, vowing to shut down the government unless Democrats agree to destroy the Affordable Care Act. Just last month, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) even demanded this his party's leadership sign a "blood oath" that they will gut America's health care system, even if the effort leads to a government shutdown. But it could happen even sooner, on an issue that has nothing to do with health care.
It's worth emphasizing that the National Republican Congressional Committee is running several attack ads on debt-limit votes, and several House GOP candidates have already vowed to reject any additional increases. Republican lawmakers, if they're in the majority, may very well see this as an opportunity to exploit. Of course, these are the same Republican lawmakers who insist on adding trillions of dollars to the debt in the form of tax cuts for millionaires, so their consistency on fiscal responsibility leaves much to be desired. Regardless, if there's a GOP majority in at least one chamber, as appears likely, it wouldn't be too surprising if Republicans shut down the government fairly early on next year. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... One of the odd rhetorical labels that's popped up in recent years is "constitutional conservative." Its meaning can vary a bit, but it's generally used by far-right zealots who believe fealty to the Constitution requires eliminating most of the American political advances of the 20th century. But there are a few problems with these folks' ideology. For one thing, "constitutional conservatives" don't seem especially interesting in conserving the Constitution -- they've talked about repealing or altering several existing constitutional amendments, and then adding plenty of new ones. For another, some of these "constitutional conservatives" don't seem to have any idea what's in the Constitution they claim to revere. Take last night's debate in Delaware, for example, between Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell (R).
Did I mention that the debate was held in a law school? Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone told the AP afterwards, "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp" among those in attendance. Erin Daly, an expert in constitutional law at Widener, added, "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise." It's only a surprise if one assumes that the Republican Party's nominee for the U.S. Senate is a functioning, coherent adult. For the record, the first 16 words of the First Amendment read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thomas Jefferson said the Founding Fathers adopted this language, "thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The right has been trying to take a sledgehammer to that wall for quite a while, but thankfully, it's still standing, Christine O'Donnell's ridiculous worldview notwithstanding. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * While extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) in Alaska has been reluctant to answer questions about his professional background, yesterday he finally reversed course. The Republican Senate hopeful told the Anchorage Daily News that he was disciplined for violating ethics rules as a public employee, and conceded that he has "many flaws." * On a related note, if you're waiting for Lisa Murkowski or Scott McAdams to drop out in Alaska, it's almost certainly not going to happen. * In a bit of a shock, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Joe Sestak (D) edging ahead in Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, leading former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), 46% to 45%. Reminder: this is only one poll, and no other outlets show Sestak ahead. * In Florida's U.S. Senate race, a new Suffolk University poll shows Marco Rubio (R) leading Gov. Charlie Crist (I), 39% to 31%. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) is third with 22%. * The same poll, meanwhile, shows Alex Sink (D) leading Rick Scott (R) in Florida's gubernatorial race, 45% to 38%. * In Missouri's U.S. Senate race, which the Democratic establishment seems to have all but written off, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Robin Carnahan (D) trailing Rep. Roy Blunt (R) by just five points, 46% to 41%. * In Ohio's gubernatorial race, it appears John Kasich (R) is pulling away. A new Quinnipiac poll shows the former Fox News personality and Wall Street executive leading Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 51% to 41%. * In Wisconsin's gubernatorial race, a new Wisconsin Public Radio poll shows Scott Walker (R) continuing to lead Tom Barrett (D), 50% to 41%. * In New York's two U.S. Senate race, a new poll from the New York Times shows both Kirsten Gillibrand (D) and Chuck Schumer (D) with very large leads. * And in Arizona, a PPP poll commissioned by Daily Kos shows Jon Hulburd (D) edging past Ben Quayle (R), 46% to 44%, in the race to succeed retiring Rep. John Shaddegg (R) in this conservative district. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
'NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE'.... If you missed last night's "The Rachel Maddow Show," I hope you'll take a few minutes to watch Rachel's opening segment, highlighting not only the parallels between media narratives and Republican campaign messages, but also how deeply misguided both are. It's a little tough to summarize -- if you can't watch clips online, there's a transcript online -- but the wrap-up was especially poignant. After noting some of the extremists poised to win in November, Rachel explained, "There's not a cogent argument to make about what kind of challenge these folks present and what's going to happen in these elections. "It's not the deficit. It's not big government. It's not the stimulus. It's not Obamacare. It's not populism. It's not that all of these people are outsiders. "It's none of these things. These things are all provably not what's going on. They're not bolstered by the facts no matter how many times you hear from the Beltway media. This is not what's happening. "But the media dressing these guys up like there is some coherent narrative, like there is some cogent argument here, that conveniently obscures what's really going here, which is that we are on the precipice of elevating to federal office the most extreme and in some cases strange set of conservative candidates in a lifetime. "Yes, this has happened to a smaller degree before.... There are extremist candidates who from time to time survive the churn of electoral politics and actually make it into the mainstream. There's always a few. But there has never been this many. "None of this makes any sense. We're just about to elect a whole bunch of extremists -- unless things change in the next two weeks." —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
IT'S ABOUT FAR MORE THAN HYPOCRISY.... If it were up to me, reports like these would have been near the top of the Democratic Party's talking points for the last year.
Obviously, this isn't just about Sessions. Literally the same exact conservative lawmakers who voted against the stimulus, and continue to rail against it, also urged the administration to spend stimulus money in their states and districts. And we're not just talking about random backbenchers -- we're talking about high-profile Republicans, including several members of the GOP leadership in both chambers. The key angle to this isn't the hypocrisy, though that's certainly amusing. The point to remember here is what this tells us about the Republicans' economic agenda and the coherence of these members' ideologies. GOP lawmakers, all of whom rejected and tried to kill the Recovery Act, continue to tell the media and Tea Party zealots that government spending is a disaster. The Republican line is (a) stimulus spending didn't work; and (b) stimulus spending is literally incapable of working. But when several dozen congressional Republicans plead for additional government spending -- in order to help the economy -- the whole argument falls apart. I'm well aware of the standard Republican reply to all of this -- the funds were going to be spent anyway, so these members figured they might as well seek some resources for their own constituents. But that's not only wrong; it misses the point. The correspondence these Republicans sent to the Obama administration makes the entire GOP talking point look demonstrably ridiculous precisely because they explicitly argue that the requested stimulus funds would create jobs. In other words, Republicans have argued that the Recovery Act can't create jobs, won't create jobs, hasn't created jobs, will create jobs, and has created jobs -- all at the same time. If these GOP officials believed their own rhetoric, this would be impossible, suggesting they couldn't possibly mean what they say. Indeed, we have the written requests for stimulus funds to prove that even Republicans think the stimulus is good policy. Here's a letter from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) saying that government spending in his district would "create jobs." And here's a letter from Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) saying that government spending in his district would "create jobs." And here's a letter from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying that government spending in his state would "create jobs." And here's a letter from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) saying that government spending in his state would help with "job creation." And here's a letter from Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif) saying that government spending in his district would help "put people back to work." Despite the deep partisan divides, we're all Keynesians now. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
THE WHITE BOARD RETURNS.... Three weeks ago, Austan Goolsbee, the new chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, unveiled the "White House White Board." In a helpful little clip, Goolsbee used a sharpie and a dry-erase board to explain the debate over tax policy -- and he did it quite well. With that in mind, I was delighted to see the white board return again this morning, this time with Goolsbee talking about job creation, standing in front of a chart that (ahem) looks awfully familiar. Goolsbee's message and visual evidence strikes me as pretty irrefutable. Through 2007 and 2008, we saw catastrophic job losses. President Obama took office, signed the Recovery Act, and saw things start to get better. We obviously have a long way to go, but we've had nine consecutive months of positive private-sector job growth, which is a hell of a lot better than where we were. Just once, I want to see a Republican on one of the Sunday morning shows get asked about this. "Sen. Smith," the host would ask in my imagination, "you said the stimulus would fail, and continue to believe the stimulus has failed. But here's this chart that seems relevant. Here's where things stood when Obama was inaugurated. By your logic, Sen. Smith, we would have expected to see the trajectory fall even lower, or at least stay the same. But reality shows otherwise, with an obvious improvement under this administration. The questions, then, are (1) why do you consider success a failure; and (2) why do you want to go back to the policies that lead to these declining red columns over here on the left side of the chart?" Of course, American journalism doesn't allow for questions like these. But the media does allow the White House to publish brief clips like Goolsbee's latest edition of the White House White Board. More like this, please. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
MAKING VOTE-SUPPRESSION TACTICS LITERAL.... Conservatives embrace a variety of efforts to suppress the votes of those who might disagree with them. The tactics are no doubt familiar by now: vote caging, ID laws, "voter integrity" squads, etc. But in Nevada, a conservative group is taking a vote-suppression strategy to its literal ends, taking out ads telling Hispanic Americans that they just shouldn't vote at all.
Let me get this straight. Desposada sees Angle running on an anti-Hispanic campaign platform, and believes Angle's approach to immigration policy is racist. Desposada also knows that if Angle wins, she'll pursue an anti-Hispanic policy agenda in the Senate. Logically, then, Desposada believes Hispanic voters should make a conscious, deliberate effort to help Angle win, so she can work against the community's interests for the next six years. What's more, Desposada believes Hispanics will have their voices heard if they stay home, refuse to say anything, and play no role in the political process at all. Latinos for Reform, in other words, is trying to suppress the Latino vote, and make reform far less likely. I've seen some dumb campaign strategies this year, but this might be the most inexplicable. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
ALASKA'S MILLER SEES VALUE IN EMULATING COMMUNISTS.... We talked at some length yesterday about extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller's (R) event at an Alaska middle school yesterday, which culminated in the candidate's private security team "arresting" Alaska Dispatch editor Tony Hopfinger. But let's not overlook what Miller had to say at the event itself. Yesterday, Miller spoke to (who else?) Fox News about the incident, and justified the forced detention of a journalist by saying Hopfinger was "unruly" in asking the candidate questions. The so-called "constitutional conservative" seems to have forgotten that reporters pressing political candidates is entirely legal, even when the candidates are Republicans. But Miller has not yet been asked to explain one of the answers he provided during the event itself, in response to a question about dealing with immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Now, as a rule, right-wing candidates don't look to East Germany for inspiration. During the Cold War, East Germany was communist. Indeed, Miller may not realize this, but East Germany "was very, very able to reduce the flow" because there was a heavily-fortified wall intended to keep people from fleeing the country, not enter it. Reducing the "flow" is easy when no one wants to go in, and no one's allowed to leave. What's more, the border was protected by well-armed East German soldiers, all of whom were ordered to open fire on anyone trying to sneak past them. In fairness, I don't imagine Joe Miller really wants to duplicate Cold War tactics, with Americans emulating the communists -- but then again, I'm not certain exactly what he has in mind, either. One of the downsides of fringe extremists winning Republican primaries for key public offices is that no one's really sure what the public will get if they win. In Miller's case, his limited professional background includes allegations of professional misconduct. As a candidate, we've heard him talk about eliminating the minimum wage and unemployment benefits, and looking to communists for guidance on immigration policy. In the Year of the Nutjob, this somehow seems par for the course. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
THE COMPANY ALLEN WEST KEEPS, CONT'D.... Following up on an item from the weekend, there's no shortage of extremists seeking key public offices this year, but even by 2010 standards, Florida congressional candidate Allen West (R) stands out as someone who seems unhinged to an almost dangerous degree. West first gained notoriety during his military service in Iraq, when he was forced to retire from the Army for engaging in abusive interrogation techniques. More recently, he's incorporated violent rhetoric into his campaign speeches, and made demonstrably ridiculous claims about his own background. Friday night, the story got considerably worse. NBC News ran a report documenting West's background associating with a violent gang of criminals, which the Justice Department believes is involved in drug running, arson, prostitution, robbery, and murder. Yesterday, things managed to get even worse, still. West spoke at a public park in the South Florida district, and a 23-year-old videographer was on hand to record the candidate's remarks, which is hardly an unusual modern campaign practice. But things got ugly when West's gang allies were caught on tape harassing and threatening the Democratic staffer. As the local NBC affiliate noted, "Threats can be heard on the video tape. The West supporters forced him to get back into his car." In the interests of keeping staffers from becoming victims of Republican violence, the Florida Democratic Party felt compelled to take the videographer off the campaign trail altogether yesterday. Would now be a good time to note that violent biker gangs and congressional campaigns don't mix? Keep in mind, the GOP establishment doesn't seem embarrassed by West's candidacy at all. He's been endorsed by Eric Cantor and Sarah Palin, and just this week, the NRCC touted West's candidacy. And as of now, West is favored to win in Florida's 22nd congressional district. It's as if some kind of contagious madness has spread throughout much of the country. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
October 18, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Iraq: "Members of United States-allied Awakening Councils have quit or been dismissed from their positions in significant numbers in recent months, prey to an intensive recruitment campaign by the Sunni insurgency, according to government officials, current and former members of the Awakening and insurgents." * That was quick: "Bank of America said Monday that it will effectively lift its foreclosure freeze on Oct. 25 when it begins resubmitting foreclosure documents to courts in 23 states. The bank said the new documents will be used in 102,000 foreclosure actions in which judgment is pending in the 23 states." * You've got to be kidding me: "Some employees of Florida's largest 'foreclosure mill' were given jewelry, cars and houses from the firm, in exchange for altering and forging key documents used to obtain foreclosures, according to a statement released today by the Florida Attorney General's Office." * Homegrown terrorism: "Four men accused of planting bombs outside synagogues in the Bronx and plotting to fire missiles at military planes were convicted on Monday, in a case that was widely seen as an important test of the entrapment defense.... The four defendants -- Onta Williams, Laguerre Payen, James Cromitie and David Williams IV -- face up to life in prison. Mr. Williams and Mr. Payen were found not guilty of one charge, attempting to kill officers and employees of the United States." * That's really not what we wanted to see: "Output at factories, mines and utilities fell 0.2 percent, the first decline since the recession ended in June 2009, according to figures from the Fed today." * Headlines like these tells us quite a bit: "Rather Than Investigating Foreclosure Fraud, House Republicans Vow To Investigate Loans To Poor People." * A minor detail that the far-right Concerned Taxpayers of America neglects to mention to the public: the group consists of just two people. * Former New York Stock Exchange Director Ken Langone's partisan whining appears to have no foundation in reality. * When PayPal's founder offered to give $100,000 to kids to drop out of college and become entrepreneurs, it really wasn't a good idea. * If you haven't seen Jonah Goldberg's Book TV panel, it featured an exchange -- which had nothing to do with Jonah Goldberg -- that has to be one of the more bizarre things ever aired on C-SPAN. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
MILLER'S PRIVATE SECURITY TEAM SEEN ON VIDEO.... Following up on a couple of earlier items, there's now some video available from the Anchorage Daily News of extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller's (R) event at an Alaska middle school yesterday. There is, as of now, no footage of Miller's private security force "arresting" Alaska Dispatch editor Tony Hopfinger after he asked Miller about allegations of professional misconduct, but this video was apparently taken soon after. Pay particular attention to the man who refused to identify himself, but who threatened a Daily News reporter with "arrest."
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE GOP, SITTIN' IN A TREE.... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending tens of millions of dollars to buy midterm elections for far-right Republican candidates. As if that weren't enough, the business lobby is using undisclosed contributions. And as if that weren't enough, some of the financing for these ads may have come from foreign corporations and foreign governments. But just to add insult to injury, the Chamber's pro-GOP ads also happen to mislead the public. Greg Sargent had this report today on the Chamber's ads targeting House Democrats:
Greg's analysis is worth checking out in full, because the demonstrably-false claims featured in the Chamber's ads -- including some arguments that were debunked months ago -- are the same claims that may very well mislead voters and sway election outcomes. What's also interesting, though, was the Chamber's response to the fact-checking. The business lobby put together a fairly detailed rebuttal, which Greg also posted. But as rebuttals go, the Chamber of Commerce's retort seems to create as many problems as it resolves. Not only does it rehash tired and misguided Republican talking points, but it relies heavily on a report commissioned by House Republicans. In other words, the Chamber (a) is airing misleading attack ads in order to help Republicans; and (b) relying on Republicans to defend themselves against evidence that the attacks are misleading. The Chamber is effectively arguing, "See? The ads we're airing on behalf of Republicans are accurate -- because Republicans say so." The thinly-veiled pretense of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce being "independent" and "non-partisan" has all but disappeared. —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
CONWAY SPARKS DISCUSSION WITH 'AQUA BUDDHA' AD.... Chris Cillizza asks today, "Did Jack Conway go too far?" He's not the only one asking. The issue is a new ad in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, launched by state Attorney General Jack Conway (D), and targeting right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R). The spot, released over the weekend, is rather odd: it goes after Paul's controversial background, including the secret society he joined in college, which mocked Christianity, and Paul's drug-induced fondness for the "Aqua Buddha." The ad has sparked a fair amount of criticism, even from the left, most notably this item from Jon Chait. But that in turn has generated some defenses, from Digby, Markos, and this item from Theda Skocpol:
I understand the point of those who disapprove of the ad, Candidates, especially Dems, aren't supposed to go after rivals for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). But having watched the Conway spot several times, I'm inclined to think a little too much is being made of this angle. Should questions of faith be off limits in attack ads? As a rule, probably. Does this get close to the line? Maybe. But the point of the spot seems to be that Rand Paul is a still largely unknown weirdo with a bizarre background and extremist ideology. And that happens to be true -- Paul really is a still largely unknown weirdo with a bizarre background and extremist ideology. For the record, I didn't much care for the ad, not because I found it offensive or divisive, but because I found it unpersuasive, especially as a closing message in the race's final two weeks. Not only does Rand Paul have far more serious vulnerabilities, I also have a hard time imagining why anyone would care about the odd antics of the man's college years. Maybe I've become desensitized in the midst of an ugly election season, but the Conway spot doesn't strike me as that harsh. It's not flagrantly dishonest -- Lord knows we've had our share of those ads this year -- and to Skocpol's point, there's no doubt in my mind that if the situations were reversed, and Conway's religious background could be exploited in an attack ad, Paul and his party would be all over it. —Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
HEADS IN THE SAND.... A decade ago, George W. Bush told voters he'd support a cap on carbon dioxide. Two years ago, the GOP's McCain/Palin presidential ticket supported a cap-and-trade policy. The Republican hostility towards science and evidence isn't new, but its wholesale, party-wide rejection of all climate data is new.
For context, it's worth emphasizing that Mark Kirk voted for cap-and-trade, only to announce soon after that he opposed cap-and-trade and would vote against it in the Senate if given the chance. We're not talking about a party that tries to resolve problems with misguided solutions; we're talking about a party that has convinced itself that the problems don't exist. Worse, the approach extends to far too much of the policy landscape. Kevin Drum had this item last night.
It's also striking to me the ways in which these same conservatives act as if they have some kind of allergy to reason. One can present them with all kinds of evidence, but it's still like entering a Python-esque Argument Clinic. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
CELEBRATING SCIENCE.... A few months after his inauguration, President Obama was showing so much passion for science and scientific integrity that one observer characterized him as "almost strident" on the issue. The description put a negative spin on what I consider to be one of the president's more endearing qualities -- I can't think of a modern president who speaks as often and as enthusiastically about science as Obama. Indeed, nearly a year ago, the president announced that, from now on, there will be an annual White House Science Fair. Obama explained at the time, "If you win the NCAA championship, you come to the White House. Well, if you're a young person and you've produced the best experiment or design, the best hardware or software, you ought to be recognized for that achievement, too. Scientists and engineers ought to stand side by side with athletes and entertainers as role models, and here at the White House we're going to lead by example. We're going to show young people how cool science can be." With that in mind, Jonathan Cohn notes that today is "Geek Day" at the White House, and in this context, that's definitely a good thing.
Damn straight. America's future depends on our willingness to make a real commitment to innovation, science, research, and intellectual pursuits. I consider it a huge step in the right direction that we've gone from a semi-literate president who publicly and repeatedly mocked those with post-graduate degrees, to a president hosting a White House Science Fair. Indeed, it shouldn't be this way, but there is a political undercurrent to all of this. It's tragic, but Republican hostility towards science, evidence, and reason speaks to the larger inability of the GOP to shape effective public policy, and the apparent cultural divide over the value of intellectual achievements. In 2010, the nation's leading Democrat is a president who values science, innovation, and learning. On the flip side, one of the nation's leading Republicans is a former half-term governor who rejects modern biology, considers climate science "snake oil", and who disdains elites with "Ivy League educations." Whether the United States is able to maintain its role as the global leader will depend on which side of this divide wins. Postscript: At the Science Fair today, the president will announce his appearance on an upcoming episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery Channel. I find this exciting because, well, I love "Mythbusters." —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
ANGLE JUST CAN'T HELP HERSELF.... It's far too soon to say who'll win Nevada's U.S. Senate race -- with 15 days to go, the polls show Harry Reid and Sharron Angle just about tied -- but a few weeks from now, we may look back at Angle's appearance at Rancho High School as the turning point. It was her remarks at the school that helped make abundantly clear just how far gone the extremist candidate really is. Consider these remarks Angle made during her appearance.
As Jon Ralston noted, no one's ever called Angle, who is not Asian, the first Asian legislator in our Nevada State Assembly. She seems to have made this up. Also note, this is the same appearance in which Angle was asked about her racist, deceptive ad, which uses an image of young Latino men as part of a divisive attempt to scare white people. She told the Hispanic Student Union that she's "not sure" the Mexicans in her ad are, in fact, Latino, and went on to argue that her seemingly-racist commercial is intended to raise fears about the Canadian border. Seriously. That's what she said. As we talked about over the weekend, I really should be beyond surprise by now. But the derangement of some unbalanced candidates for powerful public offices is so overwhelming, I often feel like I'm watching some kind of twisted performance art. After 20 years following politics closely, I've just never seen anything so pathological. Sharron Angle is either mentally disturbed or she thinks the people of Nevada are morons. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
MARK KIRK'S VERACITY BACK IN THE NEWS.... The good news for Rep. Mark Kirk, the Republican Senate hopeful in Illinois, is that he's gone a few months without new revelations surrounding his exaggerated record and background. The bad news is, there's a new one. Kirk -- if that is his real name -- has experienced a humiliating year when it comes to dishonesty. He's been caught lying repeatedly about everything from his military service to having been a nursery-school teacher. He's made a wide variety of false claims about foreign policy issues, which is supposed to be an area of expertise for him, and has even been forced to literally flee reporters trying to get Kirk to reconcile his stories with reality. In July, we learned that one of Kirk's favorite stories -- the one about being inspired to enter public service after the Coast Guard rescued him from drowning in Lake Michigan as a teenager-- wasn't entirely true, either. Today, it appears yet another example has emerged.
Last month, Kirk told the editorial board of the Chicago Sun-Times that it was his bill on policy towards Iran that was advancing in the House, even though Berman was taking credit for it. That, like most of Kirk's claims, doesn't appear to be true. Berman, the committee chairman, explained that while Kirk has worked on sanctions related to Iran, "The bill that I was involved with, we didn't even look at his legislation at the time." The final bill that advanced went much further, and was far more expansive, than Kirk's initial effort. Taken in isolation, this may seem largely meaningless. Kirk claimed credit for work he didn't do, but this this isn't exactly unprecedented on Capitol Hill. The point is the larger pattern -- Mark Kirk tells a lot of stories, asks voters to believe those stories, and then we find out that those stories aren't true. In some instances, Kirk's tall tales are demonstrable lies with no basis in fact, but more often, the Republican embellishes reality, giving the truth a more dramatic spin that makes him look better. If it were just an anecdote here or there that was exaggerated for effect, this would be entirely forgivable, even expected for a U.S. Senate candidate. But Kirk has done this repeatedly, with a wide variety of subjects over the course of many years, as if he has some kind of uncontrollable urge to mislead those around him about his own life. That this latest example came in September -- after he vowed to speak with more "precision" about his record -- suggests Kirk just can't help himself when it comes to telling tall tales. How voters are supposed to find Mark Kirk trustworthy remains a mystery. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama appeared at a huge "Moving America Forward" rally in Columbus, Ohio, yesterday, drawing 35,000 attendees according to local law enforcement. * The Republican Party distanced itself from Nazi-reenacting House candidate Rich Iott last week, but House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) political action committee continues to support Iott financially. * In September, the National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $8.3 million, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $15.5 million over the same period. The Dems entered October leading when it comes to cash on hand, $25.6 million to $19.2 million. * The Senate debate in Kentucky last night between Jack Conway (D) and Rand Paul (R) was quite ugly, capped by Paul's refusal to shake Conway's hand. * The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn't expect to have to worry about Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.) and Raul Grijalva (Ariz.). That's suddenly changed. * Rush Limbaugh endorsed West Virginia's John Raese's (R) Senate campaign the other day, noting that the two are both members of the same exclusive golf club in South Florida. Oddly enough, that helps reinforce the Democrats' message surprisingly well. * On a related note, because the Raese family doesn't live in West Virginia, the Senate candidate's wife will not be able to legally vote for him this year. * In a poll that sent shivers down the spine of many Democrats, the latest Reuters poll showed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading Carly Fiorina (R) in California's U.S. Senate race by just one point, 46% to 45%. * The same poll showed Jerry Brown (D) leading Meg Whitman (R) in California's gubernatorial race, 48% to 44%. * In the state of Washington, Sen. Patty Murray (D) leads Dino Rossi (R) in the latest Washington Post poll, 50% to 42%. * In New York's gubernatorial race, a new New York Times poll shows Andrew Cuomo (D) leading Carl Paladino (R) by 35 points, 59% to 24%. * And in Pennsylvania's gubernatorial race, the latest Magellan Strategies poll shows Tom Corbett (R) continuing to lead Dan Onorato (D), 48% to 38%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
WHAT IS LINDSEY GRAHAM TALKING ABOUT?.... Every time major media outlets characterize Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) as the kind of conservative Democrats should able to work with, we're reminded of evidence to the contrary.
Look, I get it. Graham is a conservative Republican; President Obama isn't. The White House and congressional Democrats have had a lot of policymaking success, and Graham has split his time between blocking a progressive agenda and walking away from compromises he helped strike with Democrats. But the president has launched a "takeover of most of society"? In what universe does this make sense? —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
IMAGINING IF MILLER WERE A DEMOCRAT.... We talked earlier about Senate candidate Joe Miller's (R) private security team detaining a journalist after he asked the candidate an uncomfortable question at a public event on public property. Noting the story, Adam Serwer mentioned this morning:
I realize the "imagine if a Dem had done this" line of argument gets tiresome, but in a case like this, I think it's worth asking anyway. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama mentioned the idea of having a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure. A Republican member of Congress, Georgia's Paul Broun, said the idea, which had been endorsed by the Bush administration, is the equivalent of "what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist." Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) still talk about this to make the case that the president is some kind of fascist. The hysterical right-wing line was, of course, insane. But yet, yesterday, a major-party candidate, who refuses to answer questions about his professional background, was asked by a reporter about allegations of professional misconduct. For his trouble, the reporter was put in handcuffs by a private security team, which also tried to restrict the freedom of the press -- on public property, at a public event -- for other journalists in attendance. If state Senator Obama, in 2004, had done something similar, it would be used forevermore as evidence of "liberal fascism," wouldn't it? In this case, it's not even clear why Miller would hire a private security team in the first place. Most candidates travel with a driver/scheduler, and maybe another aide or two to help talk to voters, answer a cell phone, etc. Miller, campaigning in a small-population state with a low crime rate, travels to a middle school with three members of a private security force, all wearing radio earphones, and at least one of whom carries a set of steel handcuffs. Worse, this trio, with members who won't share their names, feels empowered to detain reporters against their will, and threaten to "arrest" other journalists trying to do their constitutionally-protected jobs. If a Democrat had done this, I suspect it would not only be the biggest political story in the country, there'd be an expectation that Dems everywhere would denounce these "thuggish, Gestapo-like tactics." Glenn Beck would be crying this afternoon, weeping uncontrollably at the thought of what has become of America and our freedoms. Anyone want to lay odds on whether Beck condemns Miller's campaign today? I'd put them somewhere around 1 in a not-going-to-happen. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
KILMEADE DOESN'T SOUND ESPECIALLY SORRY.... On Friday, "Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade felt compelled to share his unique perspective on religion and terrorism: "[A] certain group of people attacked us on 9/11, it wasn't just one person, it was one religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." That is, of course, both ridiculous and offensive, and had the makings of a Rick Sanchez Moment. It was made worse when Kilmeade returned to the subject on his Fox News Radio show, insisting once again, "Not every Muslim is an extremist, a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. You can't avoid that fact." Media Matters asked, "What does Brian Kilmeade have to say to get fired?" Apparently, quite a bit more. This morning, Kilmeade told viewers, "On the show on Friday, I was talking about Bill O'Reilly's appearance on 'The View,' and I said this: 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.' Well, I misspoke. I don't believe all terrorists are Muslims. I'm sorry about that, if I offended or offended or hurt anybody's feelings. But that's it." The "that's it" declaration seems to be Kilmeade's way of saying, "I'm not Rick Sanchez." If you watch Kilmeade's "apology," such as it is, this wasn't exactly a sincere expression of regret. Indeed, claiming he "misspoke" is silly, given that Kilmeade made the comment, then repeated it hours later, insisting that his misguided, intolerant analysis is a "fact." Nevertheless, it's a reminder not only of Fox News' imaginary professional principles, but also of the competing standards. This is a network that tolerates religious bigotry on the air, just so long as it's target at certain faith traditions. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
HOW TO CREATE A BEST SELLER (WHEN NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR BOOK).... Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R) recognizes the expectation facing all presidential candidates -- he needs another book. Just as importantly, he needs it to look like a successful book. In 2007, in advance of his first national campaign, Romney published Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games. This year, he released No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, which actually managed to reach #1 on the New York Times best-seller list. Who are these mysterious people, rushing out to purchase Romney's silly text? Well, it's a funny story, actually.
You don't say. It's a reminder that the appearance of conservative books on the best-seller list should generally be taken with a grain of salt. One might see a book like Romney's atop the list and assume he has a real base of support -- which is precisely the appearance his team hopes to create. But in reality, Romney forced institutions to buy thousands of copies, inflating sales totals to almost comical heights. By most accounts the book is, as a substantive matter, rather ridiculous. Worse, it was probably ghost-written. But forcing bookstores, universities, conferences, and private groups to make it a best-seller, whether the public wanted to buy it or not, is kind of sad. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
GOP SENATE CAMPAIGN 'ARRESTS' JOURNALIST.... I've occasionally seen items that characterize Alaska as being like "a whole different country." It would have to be, since in the United States, Senate campaigns don't try to take journalists into custody.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how it's possible for a member of the media to be "trespassing" at an event open to the public, and held on public property. I wasn't there, and not surprisingly, accounts vary on exactly what transpired. Based on a variety of accounts, Hopfinger sought comment from Miller about allegations of professional misconduct, which the extremist candidate refuses to address before the election. Miller walked away, and his private security team, all wearing radio earphones, quickly surrounded the reporter. Feeling threatened, Hopfinger reportedly pushed one of the guards away, though the man who was shoved was not injured. At that point, according to accounts, guards grabbed Hopfinger and placed him in steel handcuffs. The private security team also grabbed Hopfinger's camera, and according to the reporter, a recorded portion of his "arrest" had been deleted, though Miller's guards, who refused to be identified, denied erasing anything. And just to make this truly extraordinary, when other media professionals on hand for the event tried to cover the incident, Miller's private security team tried to prevent them from talking to Hopfinger -- and threaten to "arrest" them, too. The guards also said photographs in the public hallway at the public event were prohibited, though this chilling shot was taken anyway. The right-wing Miller campaign issued a statement blaming Hopfinger for the incident, but neither the campaign nor the bizarre candidate were willing to answer questions about what transpired. Hopfinger, meanwhile, was released from handcuffs when local police arrived, and at this point, no charges have been filed against anyone. Miller, a fringe lawyer, is running on a platform premised on his alleged love of the Constitution. He may want to re-read that part about the Bill of Rights. And in the larger context, I can't help but wonder: is this what the Tea Party crowd has in mind for America's future? In their version of "limited government," should we expect extremists candidates to hire private security forces with the power to detain reporters who ask candidates about their background? Is this their vision of American "freedom"? —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)
A TYPICAL POLITICAL ANSWER.... California's Carly Fiorina (R), still hoping to parlay her striking failures in the corporate world into a successful U.S. Senate campaign, took her message to Fox News yesterday. She was asked one question in particular she really didn't want to answer.
But she didn't want to talk about it. Like far too many of her GOP brethren, Fiorina loves the idea of cutting taxes for millionaires, and is equally fond of touting the idea of deficit reduction, but seems to fall apart fairly quickly when pressed for any kind of substance that would make this agenda coherent. Eventually, a frustrated Wallace asked, "Where are you going to cut entitlements? What benefits are you going to cut? What eligibilities are you going to change?" Fiorina refused to answer, calling the line of inquiry a "typical political question." I haven't the foggiest idea what that means. Asking a Senate candidate who's talked about entitlements to answer a question about the details of her approach to entitlements is too "typically political" to warrant a response? By this reasoning, isn't literally every question directed to candidates about the major issues of the day a "typical political question"? Watching the interview, it became clear Fiorina just isn't ready for prime time (or Sunday morning, as the case may be). She eventually suggested our problems could be solved by "engaging the American people in a conversation," which is a dull euphemism for "I'll lose if I talk about substance before Election Day." Seven times Wallace asked for any kind of details about the kind of spending cuts Fiorina would support if elected. Seven times, the confused conservative candidate declined. It was embarrassing for the candidate, exasperating for the host, and painful for the viewers. What's more, as Tanya Somanader noted, it fits in nicely to a larger pattern: "While frustrating, Fiorina's lack of solutions should not be surprising. As a member of the GOP, Fiorina joins a slew of Republicans in their refusal to offer any deficit solutions no matter how many times a reporter may beg." —Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
FROM THE WEEKEND.... There were plenty of interesting developments over the weekend, so here's a recap for readers looking to catch up. On Sunday, we talked about... * Extremist Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) of Colorado explained that he not only thinks homosexuality is a choice, but he also finds it comparable to alcoholism. * The GOP push to privatize the Veterans' Administration seems to be continuing apace, merit notwithstanding. * In Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, Joe Sestak (D) has drawn an interesting parallel between GOP candidate Pat Toomey and the Sestak family dog. * Extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) of Nevada defended one of the most racist campaign attacks of the year by suggesting it was in reference to Canadians. * In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, Jack Conway (D) has an odd new ad, going after Rand Paul (R) for having dabbled in odd religious practices. And on Saturday, we talked about... * The effects of a conservative movement without sensible grown-ups are serious. * A U.S. House candidate claims he temporarily forgot the basics of his political ideology because of a "headache." * Sharron Angle's recently quarterly fundraising report isn't quite what it appears to be. * Talk of the public option hasn't gone away, and that's clearly a good thing. * "This Week in God" touched on, among other things, Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-Kan.) relationship with a radical cleric. * News Corp isn't quite done trying to help Republicans' campaign efforts. * A U.S. House candidate in Florida has scandalous connections to a gang of violent criminals. * And Fox News' Brian Kilmeade isn't quite done characterizing all terrorists as Muslims. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
October 17, 2010
BUCK COMPARES HOMOSEXUALITY TO ALCOHOLISM.... Ken Buck has already made quite a name for himself as Colorado's right-wing Senate candidate. From extremist positions on the issues to inexplicable professional misjudgments, the Republican nominee stands out -- but not in a good way. This morning on NBC's "Meet the Press," viewers got another opportunity to get to know Buck. Host David Gregory noted to the GOP challenger, "In a debate last month, you expressed your support for Don't Ask, Don't Tell [and] you alluded to 'lifestyle choices.' Do you believe being gay say choice?" Buck replied, "I do." Gregory followed up, asking, "Based on what?" After initially pretending not to understand the question, Buck added, "I guess you can choose who your partner is." Let's pause to note that Buck, if elected, wouldn't exactly be one of the towering intellects of the United States Senate. Before moving on, Gregory pressed further, asking, "You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?" Buck replied, "I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice." Sen. Michael Bennet (D) responded that he "absolutely" believes his right-wing rival is "outside the mainstream" on this. Bennet's right, but he's also understating the case. Buck's* views on human sexuality are evidence of a bizarre worldview. That he'd compare gays and lesbians to alcoholics -- dispassionately, as if this were a routine thing to say -- is a reminder that the leading U.S. Senate candidate in Colorado would be a voice of ignorance and intolerance in the chamber. It's also a reminder about a larger truth this campaign season. Like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, and Florida's Marco Rubio, Buck has benefited greatly from the fact that he's been overshadowed by other extremist candidates. In a typical year, someone like Buck would be an almost cartoonish right-wing nut, and the subject of national ridicule. After all, the far-right candidate supports repealing the 17th Amendment, eliminating the Department of Education, scrapping the federal student loan program, banning certain forms of birth control and all abortion rights, even in cases of rape or incest. He's said Americans he doesn't like are a bigger threat than terrorists, and is on record talking about privatizing Social Security, the V.A., and the Centers for Disease Control. And now Buck is insisting sexual orientation is a choice and gays are like alcoholics. I like to think Colorado is better than this, but I suppose we'll find out in 16 days. *Corrected —Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
WHEN DID THE V.A. BECOME SUCH A FAR-RIGHT TARGET?.... During a debate between Nevada's U.S. Senate candidates this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) noted that Sharron Angle has raised the specter of privatizing the Veterans' Administration. Rush Limbaugh loves the idea, and has no idea why Reid would consider that criticism.
This is the second time I've heard this from the far-right recently. Just a couple of weeks ago, extremist Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) of Colorado made a similar case:
I'm not sure why the right decided to launch this anti-VA nonsense, but so long as conservatives are pushing this line, it's worth setting the record straight. For the Washington Monthly, this has been a long-time area of interest. In 2005, we published a Philip Longman piece on V.A. hospitals called, "The Best Care Anywhere." As Longman explained at the time, "Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be 'significantly better.' ... The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care." Yes, the taxpayer-financed, government-run VA hospitals are some of the finest medical facilities in the country. Limbaugh and Buck think they'd be better off being privatized, but that's largely because they're popping off on a subject they don't understand. —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
WHAT BELLE AND TOOMEY HAVE IN COMMON.... It's not uncommon to hear Democrats talk about the difficulties and inconveniences of having to clean up Republicans' messes. But Senate hopeful Joe Sestak (D) is making that case to Pennsylvania voters in a more literal way. In a clever new television ad, Sestak, a congressman and retired Navy Admiral, introduces voters to his family's dog. "I'm Joe Sestak, and this is Belle," Sestak says. "My family loves Belle, but she can make a mess -- and we have to clean it up. "I think about Belle when I see Congressman Toomey's ads attacking me. It made me sick to bail out the banks. But I had clean up the mess left behind by these guys," Sestak says, pointing to photos of Toomey, his right-wing opponent, and former President Bush. "They let Wall Street run wild. Now Pat Toomey is attacking me for cleaning up his mess." If you're going to run an ad defending the financial industry rescue, this is the way to do it. As for the race itself, is there much of a chance that Sestak can come from behind and eke out a win here, just as he did in the primary? Nate Silver doubts it, but it's worth noting that some polls suggest the contest is tightening a bit in the Keystone State, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee recently redirected funds out of Florida and into Pennsylvania, suggesting the GOP isn't as confident about the race as it once was. Something to keep an eye on. —Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
ANGLE PLAYS NEVADANS FOR FOOLS.... Even in an ugly political cycle, some offensive attacks stand out for being uniquely ugly. This month, for example, we saw right-wing candidates Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Sharron Angle (R) use an identical image of young Latino men as part of a divisive attempt to scare white people. Upon closer inspection, the entire message isn't just racially divisive, it's also intended to deceive voters. But for Angle, the extremist candidate in Nevada, we've got it all wrong. At least, that's what she told a group of Hispanic high school students the other day.
I really should be beyond surprise by now. But the derangement of some unbalanced candidates for powerful public offices is so overwhelming, I often feel like I'm watching some kind of twisted performance art. Angle's race-baiting ads, some of the ugliest since Jesse Helms, have all the subtlety of a wrecking ball. She shows viewers images of Mexicans and a map of Mexico over on-screen text about "illegal aliens." But she's "not sure that those are Latinos"? Her point relates to Canada? After 20 years following politics closely, I've just never seen anything so pathological. Sharron Angle is either mentally disturbed or she thinks the people of Nevada are morons. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
CONWAY REACHES FOR THE KITCHEN SINK.... In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) is trailing right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R), but the underdog appears to be within striking distance. With two weeks to go, the Democratic campaign is prepared to do what it takes to close the gap. That, apparently, includes this bizarre new ad, going after Paul's controversial background, including the secret society he joined in college, which mocked Christianity, and Paul's drug-induced fondness for the "Aqua Buddha." I have no idea whether something like this will be effective. Kentucky's cultural conservatism and strong evangelical majority may respond well to the message, and reinforce fears about Paul's personal oddities. (The point is spelled out plainly in the ad's conclusion: "Why are there so many questions about Rand Paul?") Still, I much preferred when Democrats didn't attack rival candidates over their religious beliefs. What's more, I also think Conway has an even stronger line of attack going after Rand Paul's support for a regressive 23% sales tax on everything Kentuckians purchase. Not only has the Republican candidate endorsed the radical idea, he's even lied about it. This week, Paul told reporters of the tax scheme, "I haven't really been saying anything like that." But the evidence to the contrary is clear -- Paul endorsed the 23% sales tax in writing; in April he delivered a speech calling it a "great" idea; and he's expressed his support for the tax policy over and over and over again. Forget Paul's quirky religious background and his college days; this seems like the real vulnerability.
October 16, 2010
WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, A NATION TURNS ITS LONELY EYES TO YOU.... There's an ongoing and worthwhile effort underway to understand exactly how and why the conservative movement appears to have gone berserk. Some have argued there's a racial/demographic shift underway, while others point, more persuasively, to the cyclical nature of far-right hysteria. But Adam Serwer wrote an item this week that resonated with me, pointing to a Sean Wilentz piece about "an unprecedented mainstreaming of once fringe far-right ideas," which Wilentz blames on a lack of "forthright leadership."
It didn't used to be this way. William F. Buckley* once famously took on the John Birch Society and made them unwelcome in the Republican Party of the era. In 2010, Buckley has passed, and it's no longer unusual for GOP officials and their party platforms to echo the same fringe ideas Birchers and their ilk have been pushing for years. As Adam explained, "the right currently lacks a Buckley-like figure who could beat back the fringe while maintaining his conservative credibility.... Countering the conspiracy-minded right was a job for the kind of ideological ombudsman the modern right just doesn't have. " Agreed. He was writing about a very different point, but Ezra Klein noted the other day, "This isn't a very popular statement, but there is a role for elites in public life. Just like I want knowledgeable CEOs running companies and knowledgeable doctors performing surgeries, I want knowledgeable legislators crafting public policy. That's why we have a representative democracy, rather than some form of government-by-referendum. But of late, the elites in the Republican Party are abdicating their roles, preferring to pander." To be crude about it, there's just no one left on the right to tell their brethren, "Um, guys? You've gone stark raving mad." To varying degrees, David Frum, Bruce Bartlett, Brink Lindsey, and Will Wilkinson have all tried -- and were all quickly punished for their efforts. The media won't do it; Democrats don't seem able to do it; and the electorate seems unwilling to do it. Indeed, voters appear to poised to do the exact opposite, rewarding extremism instead of punishing it. In the wake of Bush/Cheney, there was a leadership vacuum, but the country is yet to come to terms with the fact that it was filled by radicals. The result, as Wilentz explained with painful precision, is that "the extreme right wing is on the verge of securing a degree of power over Congress and the Republican Party that is unprecedented in modern American history." * Postscript: This is not to characterize Buckley as some kind of moderate. He was, after all, a staunch critic of the civil rights movement, an apologist for Jim Crow, and a supporter of segregation. My point here, though, is that when it came to fringe hysterics and wild-eyed conspiracy theories, Buckley played the role of a voice of reason. As the conservative movement descends further into madness, there is no comparable voice now. —Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (62)
NOT TONIGHT, REPUBLICANS, BILL FLORES HAS A HEADACHE.... If Republicans are going to take the House, they're going to have to win races like the one in Texas' 17th congressional district, a center-right district represented by Democrat Chet Edwards. At this point, millionaire oil executive Bill Flores (R) appears well positioned to win, despite Edwards' exceptional career. But before Flores celebrates, he may want to take some Advil. The Central Texas district is home to a high percentage of seniors, which is why it seemed odd to see the GOP candidate adopt the right's controversial approach to undermining Social Security. Indeed, on Thursday, Flores explained in a television appearance that he's "not philosophically opposed to raising the retirement age" to 70. He added that he wants Social Security to be there for him, "and I accept the fact I may have to raise my retirement age for that." The next day, Flores used a novel approach to try to walk back his own comments.
I've been keeping an eye on quite a few campaigns this year, and I've seen some doozies when candidates get caught saying something embarrassing. Usually, they go with "that was taken out of context," even when it wasn't, or "I never said that," even when they did. But Flores is breaking new, creative ground here. On Thursday, he was open to raising the retirement age; on Friday, he wasn't. The difference was ... a headache? I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but like everyone else, I can think of times I've had headaches. Not once have they caused me to forget the basics of my own political ideology. In a couple of weeks, if anyone's considering midterm-election awards, I think Bill Flores has wrapped up the "Most Laughable Excuse" category. —Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
A CLOSER LOOK AT ANGLE'S IMPRESSIVE HAUL.... Among many campaign observers, many jaws dropped this week when extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) reported having raised a stunning $14 million in the last quarter. To put that in perspective, her opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), who isn't exactly a slouch in the fundraising department, he raised one-seventh the total of his Nevada rival over the same period. But there was a catch that wasn't evident when the Angle campaign made the announcement, and it's an interesting story. Not long after winning her primary with almost no money at all, Angle hired a controversial fundraising firm called Base Connect, which has a habit of raising huge sums for its GOP clients, and then taking exorbitant commissions/fees for itself. As Justin Elliott reported in July, "For the past several election cycles, the firm's M.O. has gone like this: find a longshot conservative candidate running against a well-established Democratic incumbent, then launch a national fundraising campaign by sending direct mail to a list of true-believing but small-time conservative donors around the country. The catch is that as much 75 or 80 or even 95 percent of the money raised is paid back to Base Connect and its 'partner' companies." Which brings us to this week, and Angle's remarkable $14 million quarter. How much of that haul will the right-wing candidate have left for the closing weeks of the campaign? The answer makes a big difference.
Yes, despite that impressive quarterly report, Angle and Reid have about the same amount of money left in the bank for the campaign's homestretch (though this doesn't include the far-right "independent" groups that will be trying to buy the race on Angle's behalf.) Angle raised over $14 million, but that's much less impressive when one notices that she spent $12 million. It's unclear exactly how big a cut Base Connect has taken from Angle thus far, but it looks like more than a third of the money she raised went to paying for the fundraising itself, and that doesn't include possible fees for Base Connect's "partner" companies. In other words, the massive quarterly report only told part of a larger story. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
THE PUBLIC OPTION AGENDA HASN'T GONE AWAY (NOR SHOULD IT).... Ask the typical proponent of health care reform what he/she would have liked to see in the Affordable Care Act, but which didn't make the cut, and you'll likely hear about the public option. The idea of a publicly-run competitor for private insurance consistently polled well, but ended up lacking the political support necessary to prevail. Yesterday, a House Democratic leader noted that the party wouldn't mind another chance at getting this done.
Obviously, there's no reason to take this too seriously. The likelihood of Dems maintaining a House majority is remote, at best, and even if there were some kind of electoral miracle, and a majority of the House still supported a public option next year, the dysfunctional Senate wouldn't allow a vote on the idea. President Obama would almost certainly welcome a bill with a public option reaching his desk, but I don't imagine he wants to have another big fight over health care policy anytime soon. More likely, he's going to have to fight just to keep what he's already won. That said, I'm glad Clyburn brought it up anyway, even if the comments were borne of desperation. It's worth noting, from time to time, that the public option belongs on the list of policies Democrats want, and will continue to want, until it's law. The most recent push for the proposal wasn't the last time we'll see an appeal for a public option; it was the first. Indeed, after the lengthy fight to pass the ACA, it's easy to forget that this was the first time the idea of a public option had ever been considered by lawmakers. As recently as 2004, leading Democratic presidential candidates offered some reasonably good health care plans -- though none was as ambitious as the final version of the Affordable Care Act -- but not one, not even Howard Dean, made any reference to a public option. It wasn't because they were opposed to the concept, it's because the concept hadn't really taken shape yet. Clyburn's underlying point happens to be true -- the Democratic desire to create a public option hasn't gone away. If its proponents don't want to get further away from their goal, they should help prevent a Republican takeover of Congress. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a controversial association between a sitting U.S. senator and a scandalous pastor. The preacher's name is Lou Engle, whose name may or may not be familiar, though you've probably heard of his work. Engle is perhaps best known for working with lawmakers in Uganda on legislation allowing the execution of gays and lesbians, but he's also argued publicly that President Obama is responsible for unleashing "demons" upon the United States, and that Satan has gained control over the American government. This week, reports surfaced that Sen. Sam Brownback (R), currently the frontrunner in Kansas' gubernatorial race, has not only worked closely with the radical cleric, but the two even lived together for several months. After initially refusing to discuss his relationship with the extremist religious leader, Brownback finally addressed the matter on Wednesday, expressing "uneasiness" with some of Engle's work.
The senator/gubernatorial frontrunner did not specify which positions espoused by the radical cleric Brownback found disagreeable. Brownback is under increasing pressure to formally denounce Engle once and for all, but as of now, the far-right Republican has refused. Also from the God Machine this week: * This week, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints scrambled to denounce bullying, including for reasons of sexual orientation, after a senior Mormon leader made anti-gay remarks against a backdrop of bullying and suicides of numerous gay teenagers. (thanks to D.J. for the tip) * Glenn Beck has been using his Fox News program to urge Christians to reject climate science, and is relying on a religious group funded by ExxonMobil to do it. * A poll in Tennessee this week found that two-thirds of Tennesseans "agree" or "strongly agree" that Muslims should have the same religious rights as other Americans. The same poll found that 14% of people in the state disagreed. * In Los Angeles this week, an atheist conference sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism brought together some notable non-believers. The NYT noted, "They agreed on two things: People can be good without religion, and religion has too much influence. But they disagreed about how stridently to make those claims." * And Media Matters noted this week that a variety of Fox News personalities are using their media platform to "promote theories about Biblical Armageddon." Seriously. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
NEWS CORP'S SHAMELESSNESS.... In mid-August, we learned that media giant News Corp., Fox News' parent company, had broken new political ground by contributing $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. There was no modern precedent for this kind of financial intervention by a media company, and asked for an explanation, a spokesperson said it was because News Corp agrees with Republicans. Last month, the story got slightly worse -- in addition to the RGA donation, and in-kind contributions by Fox News personalities on a daily basis, News Corp has now also contributed an additional $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Were there any other contributions? Yep.
As it turns out, shortly before we learned of this latest six-figure check, Rupert Murdoch "got a grilling from his company's shareholders" about the "reputational risk" News Corp created by writing huge checks to help Republicans by the election cycle. Murdoch seemed unfazed by the questions. Asked if News Corp would involve shareholders in the political donation process, Murdoch said no. Asked if News Corp would commit to transparency about the media company's campaign contributions, Murdoch hedged. He did, however, insist that using News Corp's bank account to influence the outcome of U.S. elections is worthwhile, because he wants to see "a fair amount of change in Washington." The striking shamelessness of it all is a sight to behold. —Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
THE COMPANY ALLEN WEST KEEPS.... Even in a year with an excessive number of extremists seeking key offices, Florida congressional candidate Allen West (R) stands out as someone who seems unhinged to an almost dangerous, out-of-control degree. West first gained notoriety during his military service in Iraq, when he was forced to retire from the Army for engaging in abusive interrogation techniques. More recently, he's incorporated violent rhetoric into his campaign speeches, and made demonstrably ridiculous claims about his own background. Last night, the story got considerably worse. NBC News ran a report documenting West's background associating with a violent gang of criminals, which the Justice Department believes is involved in drug running, arson, prostitution, robbery, and murder. West has had personal dealings with the Florida chapter of this violent gang, and has even defended them in emails (despite having lied about those emails). At this point, the two questions that come to mind are: (1) where do Republicans find guys like this to seek federal office? and (2) why on earth are candidates like these considered acceptable by Republicans in the 21st century? Keep in mind, the GOP establishment doesn't seem embarrassed by West's candidacy at all. He's been endorsed by Eric Cantor and Sarah Palin, and just this week, the NRCC touted West's candidacy. And as of now, West is favored to win in Florida's 22nd congressional district. It's as if some kind of contagious madness has spread throughout much of the country. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
KILMEADE DOUBLES DOWN, CONDEMNS MUSLIMS AGAIN.... On yesterday's "Fox & Friends," co-host Brian Kilmeade felt compelled to share his unique perspective on religion and terrorism: "[A] certain group of people attacked us on 9/11, it wasn't just one person, it was one religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." That is, of course, both ridiculous and offensive, and had the makings of a Rick Sanchez Moment. Major media outlets didn't quite see it that way -- Kilmeade's comments were widely ignored -- but several online outlets (including this one) raised the visibility of his condemnation a bit. So, Kilmeade returned to the subject on his Fox News Radio show. After taking note of some Muslim terrorists, he insisted once again, "Not every Muslim is an extremist, a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. You can't avoid that fact." Actually, you can avoid that "fact," since it's not a fact at all. There are many kinds of terrorists around the world who commit brutal acts of violence, and they're not Muslim. Kilmeade's bigotry has rendered him embarrassingly, shamelessly ignorant. But instead of walking back his ugly comments when he had the chance, Kilmeade decided to double down and repeat them. Media Matters asked, "What does Brian Kilmeade have to say to get fired?" I've been wondering the same thing. To reiterate a point from yesterday, the larger lesson seems to be that bigotry is acceptable, so long as it's directed towards some groups and not others. If Kilmeade had said, "Not all Jews run media organizations, but all media organizations are run by Jews," there'd probably be some pushback. If he'd told his national television audience, "Not all Roman Catholic priests are caught up in abuse scandals, but everyone caught up in abuse scandals is a Roman Catholic priest," I suspect it would have been a bigger deal. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
October 15, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * The Fed eyes a new round of intervention: "The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, appeared to remove any lingering doubt Friday that the central bank would take new actions to fortify the torpid recovery and fight low inflation and high unemployment." * Social Security: "Another year without an increase in Social Security retirement and disability benefits is creating a political backlash that has President Barack Obama and Democrats pushing to give a $250 bonus to each of the program's 58 million recipients." * Not helpful: "Israel ended an unofficial construction freeze in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem on Friday, announcing plans to build 238 housing units. The move comes as hard-won peace talks are stalled over the question of whether Israel will extend its broader construction moratorium in the West Bank." * Those worried about inflation aren't paying attention: "The economy continued to show little sign of inflation as consumer prices eased marginally in September, while the retail sector provided a glimmer of hope for consumers, government reports said on Friday." * Seems like a no-brainer: "A domestic abuse victim filed a lawsuit Friday claiming a disgraced Wisconsin prosecutor violated her constitutional rights by sending her text messages seeking to start an affair while prosecuting her ex-boyfriend." * Remember, not all earmarks are wasteful: "Earmarks have long been maligned as pork. I thought I'd go see what one looks like in Massachusetts, so I went to the ALS Therapy Development Institute in Cambridge." (thanks to R.L. for the tip) * The Forgive Student Loan Debt initiative will piggyback onto Jon Stewart's upcoming rally, in the hopes of making the case that forgiving all students loans would boost the economy. * During a debate this week between Delaware's major-party Senate candidates, Christine O'Donnell (R) insisted that Chris Coons (D) "paid $53,000 in a men's fashion show." She was lying. * If you haven't taken the time to watch the clip of Fort Worth City Councilman Joel Burns' message to GLBT teens, you should. It's quite powerful. (thanks to S.Y. for passing it along.) Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)
DEFICIT SHRINKS FROM LAST YEAR'S RECORD.... Deficit hawks probably won't be pleased with the total, but they should at least be pleased with the direction.
If this sounds familiar, it's because the Congressional Budget Office reported on its estimate of the federal budget deficit for FY2010 would just last week. Today's Treasury report is the official deficit tally, though as it turns out, the CBO projection was almost on the nose. The $1.294 trillion shortfall is smaller than last year's total; it's slightly lower than the deficit President Obama inherited from his predecessor; and the final figure was smaller than projections made by the administration and the CBO earlier this year. Want to have some fun? Ask your favorite Tea Partier whether the deficit they claim to care so much about is higher or lower now than when Obama took office. They won't care for the answer, but it's true. What's more, as Stan Collender recently noted, the $122 billion improvement on the deficit "is the biggest one-year nominal drop in the deficit that has ever occurred." We probably won't see headlines blaring, "U.S. achieves biggest one-year deficit reduction in American history," but that just happens to be the case. So, why won't this news be heralded as a positive development. For all the reasons we talked about last week. For those of us who want to see the government borrow more in order to invest in economic growth and job creation, news of the deficit going down isn't good news at all. Borrowing more money is exceedingly cheap right now, and the economy desperately needs a boost. The fact that the deficit is shrinking may seem like good news in the abstract, but it's arguably the opposite of what we need. And for those who consider the deficit a civilization-threatening scourge, we may be witnessing "the biggest one-year nominal drop in the deficit that has ever occurred," but it's not enough because it's still $1.29 trillion. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell responded to the report showing a shrinking a deficit with a press release, boasting that the new figure is proof that Republicans are right (about what was unclear). As Collender put the reduction "was both too much and not enough." Jonathan Cohn added last week that there were plenty of center-right Dems who balked at deficit spending, even to improve the economy, because they were afraid of a backlash: "Running higher deficits, they thought, would incur the wrath of voters and make re-election difficult. Well, now they've gotten their way. The deficit is coming down. Let's see how much the voters care come November." —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
ANGLE: LEAVE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ALONE.... Last night's debate between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) and Sharron Angle (R) may have been dull, but it wasn't without substantive revelations. Greg Sargent noted that the moderator asked Angle if there are literally any medical treatments or exams that health insurance companies should be required to cover. She eventually replied, "What we have here is a choice between the free markets and Americanism. America is about choices. The free market will weed out those companies that do not offer as many choices and do not have a cost-effective system." Of course, for decades we've had insurers that offered fewer choices and cost-ineffective systems, but relying on the free market wasn't enough to help families who needed more. The Reid campaign quickly put together this new ad, explaining what Angle's approach means in the real world: "At the debate, Sharron Angle couldn't think of a single thing insurance companies should be made to cover. Not one thing. Not colon cancer tests. Not mammograms. Not autism. Nothing." The ad characterizes this as both "extreme" and "dangerous." Greg added, "Many have noted already that the Angle-Reid race has posed voters with one of the starkest ideological choices you could possibly ask for in a political contest. Her answer on mandates makes this even clearer." Agreed. It's not dishonesty or corruption or scandal; it's about competing values. Angle believes what really matters is the government leaving insurance companies alone, no matter what the effects are on the public; Reid believes what really matters is protecting Americans from insurers' excesses and guaranteeing a standard of care. It's a microcosm of a larger philosophical dispute -- should the government look out for consumers and offer families a safety net, or should people fall prey to the whims of businesses that are compelled to put shareholders' interests above the public's? —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
TIDES FOUNDATION REACHES OUT TO BECK ADVERTISERS.... Over the summer, a man named Byron Williams loaded up his mother's truck with firearms, put on body armor, and headed to San Francisco with the intention of starting a violent rampage. He had an arsenal that featured armor-piercing rounds fired from a .308-caliber rifle. After being pulled over for driving erratically, Williams, a rabid Glenn Beck fan, opened fire on Oakland police officers. They, however, weren't his intended target -- his goal was to "start a revolution" with bloodshed at the Tides Foundation, a non-profit organization that supports "sustainability, better education, solutions to the AIDS epidemic and human rights," but which Beck considers a cog in some larger conspiracy to destroy capitalism. As it turns out, the prospect of a madman plotting a murderous rampage has left the Tides Foundation feeling unsettled.
Pike's correspondence added, "I respectfully request that you bring this matter of your company's sponsorship of hate speech leading to violence to the attention of your fellow directors as soon as possible. I believe no responsible company should advertise on Fox News due to its recent and on-going deplorable conduct." Time will tell whether this has any effect, but the Tides Foundation going directly to these companies, pressing them on the advertising on the Republican network, is clearly a bold move. It also ties into Fox News' ongoing problem in this area: as of last month, "296 advertisers have asked that their commercials not be shown on Beck's show (up from 26 in August 2009). Fox also has a difficult time selling ads on 'The O'Reilly Factor' and 'Fox and Friends' when Beck appears on those shows as a guest." This from a host who's lost more than a fourth of his audience since the highs of 2009. It's something to keep in mind as those sponsors receive the Tides Foundation's request, and consider their next ad buy. —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
SOFT BIGOTRY, LOW EXPECTATIONS.... I couldn't bring myself to watch last night's debate between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) and extremist challenger Sharron Angle (R), but nearly all of the accounts I've read suggested it was dull, depressing, and interminable. But several reports also note that Angle fared relatively well in the showdown. Kevin Drum, who also didn't watch, notes that the Republican nominee "may have benefited from galactically low expectations."
I feel like this has come up more and more lately. Chris Cillizza responded to the same debate agreeing that Angle was "far from impressive," but she nevertheless "almost certainly met the low bar of credibility she needed to clear to have a real chance at winning the race." I understand the point. Observers tune in to see if a candidate can stand there and not run away crying. But in a modern democracy, that's not much of a standard for powerful statewide offices. The political world seems to realize that some real nutjobs have won major-party nominations this year, which then apparently leads to surprise when clearly unqualified nominees manage to engage in a debate without drooling on themselves for an hour. But, really, what do these debate watchers expect? Was there any real chance that Sharron Angle would take the stage last night, pull out a machine gun, and start threatening to kill gay immigrants who used to work for ACORN? We seem to have developed a depressing checklist: (a) did the candidate show up; (b) did the candidate speak English; (c) did the candidate remember the talking points drilled into his/her head by handlers from Washington; (d) did the candidate repeat the poll-tested zinger; (e) did the candidate avoid some kind of mental breakdown. If most of the list gets a check mark, then the candidate is necessarily deemed credible enough for service. We're talking about entry into the United States Senate, which actually used to mean something. The hurdle for electoral victory and the acquisition of considerable power needs to be considerably higher. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
THE MOST AMAZING LIBERTARIAN QUOTE OF ALL TIME.... There's apparently an ongoing controversy in New Hampshire about state officials removing a newborn from a home considered dangerous for the child. Reports indicate that the father in the home has a long history of domestic violence towards the mother and her two other children, and an affidavit from the state's Division for Children also noted the multiple weapons in the home, as well as the father's associations with radical political organizations. But that last part sparked outrage from libertarians, who've argued the state is stealing the babies of Oath Keepers. Slate's Tom Scocca flagged a quote from one local activist that simply amazed me (thanks to reader D.D. for the heads-up):
Oh, those wacky libertarians. Sometimes, they just leave me speechless. Scocca added in response:
I can't do any better than that. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
DANCING WITH THE CZARS.... Remember last year, when Republicans seemed awfully excited about "czars"? It was all the rage for a while, and Congress even held a couple of hearings for reasons I still don't understand. Eventually, it occurred to the political world that the "debate," such as it was, had no value; "czars" weren't controversial; the Obama White House was utilizing officials just as other modern administrations had done; and the story faded away. Looking back, the whole hullabaloo seems to serve as a reminder of how silly our political discourse can be. Alas, not everyone thinks so.
Good lord, do we really have to do go through this again? Jed Lewison, who characterized all of this as "insane," added:
For the record, the Bush/Cheney administration had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during its two terms. Congressional Republicans never cared, and in some cases, applauded the expansion of the czar team. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * Are Americans really OK with this? "Spending by outside groups trying to influence the mid-term elections increased by a staggering $78 million in the last week, pushing the total spent by non-profits, labor unions and party committees to more than $200 million this cycle. That's an 80 percent increase from 2006, the last mid-term election." * In other fundraising news, the Republican Governors Association raised a stunning $31 million in the third quarter, about triple the amount raised by the Democratic Governors Association. The DCCC, however, outraised the NRCC in September, $15.9 million to $11.2 million. * In Florida's U.S. Senate race, Republicans are so confident in Marco Rubio's success that the NRSC has canceled $4 million in TV ads, and will instead spend the money in California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. * Speaking of Florida, a new Sunshine State News poll shows Alex Sink (D) leading Rick Scott (R) in this year's gubernatorial race, 48% to 45%. The same poll had shown Scott with a modest lead. * In West Virginia's U.S. Senate race, a new Marshall University poll shows Gov. Joe Manchin (D) with a surprisingly large lead over John Raese (R), 48% to 38%. * And speaking of West Virginia, remember when then the National Republican Senatorial Committee said it had nothing do with the "hicky" casting call? It turns out, the NRSC wasn't telling the truth. * In Ohio's gubernatorial race, a new Ohio Poll shows John Kasich (R) leading Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 51% to 43%. * In South Carolina's gubernatorial race, the Republican Governors Association is worried enough about Nikki Haley's (R) chances that it's running attack ads against Democratic nominee Vincent Sheheen. * In Massachusetts' gubernatorial race, the latest Suffolk University poll shows Gov. Deval Patrick (D) out in front in his re-election bid with 46% support, followed by Charlie Baker (R) with 39% and Tim Cahill (I) third at 10%. * Vermont's gubernatorial race continues to be very close, with a new Vermont Public Radio poll showing Brian Dubie (R) leading Peter Shumlin (D) by one, 44% to 43%. * In Nevada's gubernatorial race, Brian Sandoval (R) leads Rory Reid (D), but the margin depends on which poll you rely on. PPP shows Sandoval up by nine, while Mason-Dixon has Sandoval's leading by 15. * And in Connecticut's gubernatorial race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Dan Malloy (D) leading Tom Foley (R), 49% to 42%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
RATIONALIZING HOSTILITY FOR THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION.... Senate candidate Rand Paul, like a lot of his GOP brethren this year, would like to eliminate the Department of Education. During a debate yesterday, he elaborated on why.
And here I thought Paul wouldn't have a good reason. Clearly, he's given this a lot of thought. Or not. It's certainly possible that Rand Paul knows better and is just making a shameless appeal for the bigot vote, but when he makes remarks like these, the motivation hardly matters. Ugly intolerance notwithstanding, it's worth emphasizing that the Department of Education has been around for a while, and it's never dictated lessons to any school districts on telling kindergardeners about same-sex couples. Paul seems to have just made it up. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
RON JOHNSON PLANS A 'RE-EDUCATION OF AMERICA'.... Wisconsin Senate hopeful Ron Johnson reminds me a bit of Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey -- both are very lucky they're being overshadowed by other extremist candidates. In a typical year, Johnson's bizarre, misguided worldview would be a pretty major national story. The chattering class would marvel at questions like, "Would Wisconsin really elect a far-right radical to the U.S. Senate?" But this isn't a typical year, and unhinged candidates like Angle, Paul, O'Donnell, Miller, and Buck have garnered enough attention that Johnson can run in relative anonymity outside his home state. This week, Politico's Jim VandeHei reported from Wisconsin on the significance of the Senate race pitting Johnson against Sen. Russ Feingold (D), and the GOP candidate reflected a bit on his future plans.
Is that so. Vote for Johnson in November and then voters will get to see what he's all about. Call me old fashioned, but that sounds backwards. Elsewhere in the Politico piece, VandeHei asked what kind of innovative ideas Johnson might pursue as a U.S. senator. Johnson skipped right past substantive issues, and committed himself to a "re-education of America." Are you kidding me? Can you even imagine what the response would be if a liberal Democrat vowed to pursue a "re-education of America" if elected to the U.S. Senate? Maybe Wisconsin voters just don't know what they're getting themselves into; maybe they do and they're angry enough not to care. Regardless, Johnson may not get the exposure some of his extremist allies get in Nevada, Delaware, and Kentucky, but the differences between his right-wing worldview and theirs are practically non-existent. We are, after all, talking about the far-right candidate who rails against government intervention in private industry, but has sought and received federal aid for his business enterprises. He thinks "sunspots" cause global warming, which doesn't make any sense. He's argued that China is better for businesses than the United States. He thinks Greenland has snow because of global cooling. At the height of the BP oil spill disaster, he said he'd sell his BP stock, just as soon as it was more profitable for him. More recently, Johnson has boasted in ads about his disdain for Social Security. Worse, he's said he hates the stimulus, then got caught seeking stimulus funds, and then said asking for stimulus money isn't proof that he wanted the money. He's had a scandalous role in trying to protect child molesters from abuse lawsuits, and his story about being a self-made success in business isn't quite what it appears to be. And now he intends to launch a "re-education of America." Given all of this, it's awfully difficult to take Ron Johnson seriously. At least, it would be, if he weren't leading in every poll. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
ANOTHER DEM BUCKS THE TREND ON HEALTH CARE POLITICS.... Following up on an item from yesterday, it's actually pretty encouraging to see the recent shift in strategy for many congressional Democrats who aren't afraid of health care reform. All of a sudden, we're seeing a number of congressional Democrats run on, instead of away from, the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. The latest example is Rep. Allyson Schwartz's (D-Pa.) new ad, unveiled this week, touting her work on protecting children with pre-existing conditions from insurance discrimination -- a key and popular provision in the Affordable Care Act. And while this is a good ad with merit, the larger significance is the fact that a growing number of Dems have decided to stop hiding from one of their landmark achievements. Just in the last few weeks, we've seen ads with a pro-ACA message from Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and among House incumbents, Reps. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.), Dan Malloy (D-Conn.), Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), and Dina Titus (D-Nev.). What's more, Brian Beutler noted this week that some candidates, including Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), have touted at least parts of the Affordable Care Act during debate performances, and Reps. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) and John Garamendi (D-Calif.) have published op-eds in their districts defending the law. The conventional wisdom -- the law is unpopular, so Dems don't want to talk about it -- certainly isn't true everywhere. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
MILKING HANNITY FOR ALL HE'S WORTH.... Trailing in the polls, extremist Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell (R) would love a boost from her party, which seems to have already written her off. Bur Howard Fineman reports that the radical Delaware candidate has an alternate approach to rally support.
The strategy makes some sense. Hoping to pit the far-right party leadership against the further-right party base, O'Donnell figures she can remain competitive by telling activists that she's challenging an entrenched establishment. The hysterical base, which would love to see the Republican Party become even more unhinged, is then supposed to rally behind O'Donnell's cause. And sure enough, just yesterday, O'Donnell appeared on Hannity's radio show to plead for the cash that the National Republican Senatorial Committee isn't sending her way. But here's the question: shouldn't Hannity mind this kind of exploitation? Sure, he's a shameless hack, but hearing an extremist candidate boast, "I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket," should cause at least a little discomfort, shouldn't it? C'mon, Sean, have some self-respect. Stand up for yourself. Don't allow yourself to be used by nutjobs who only like you for your audience's gullibility. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... As you may have heard, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly appeared on "The View" yesterday, and the discussion didn't go well. As part of an argument over converting a closed clothing store into a community center -- oh good, we're still talking about that -- O'Reilly blasted Muslims, and two of the co-hosts were disgusted enough to walk off the set. On "Fox & Friends" this morning, Brian Kilmeade, not surprisingly, criticized Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, saying they "couldn't handle" the debate. Kilmeade added, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." He was, by all appearances, serious. It's more than a little upsetting that this kind of nonsense is deemed acceptable. Ideally, "all terrorists are Muslims" would be a "Rick Sanchez moment" for Brian Kilmeade, but that's probably unlikely, since it's Fox News and this kind of talk is painfully common. I hesitate to treat this kind of ugliness with a substantive response, but given what we've seen of late, it's hard to believe even someone of Brian Kilmeade's abilities could overlook all of the recent domestic terrorism committed by non-Muslims. Byron Williams recently plotted a terrorist scheme in California, and he's not a Muslim. John Patrick Bedell opened fire at the Pentagon; Joe Stack flew an airplane into a building; Jerry Kane Jr. and his son killed two police officers in Arkansas; and none of them is Muslim. A Hutaree Militia terrorist plot was uncovered, and none of its members is Muslim. Last year, James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust memorial museum; Richard Poplawski gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh, in part because he feared the non-existent "Obama gun ban"; and Dr. George Tiller was assassinated. No Muslims here, either. In 2008, Jim David Adkisson opened fire in a Unitarian church in Tennessee, in part because of his "hatred of the liberal movement." And let's also not forget the Oklahoma City Bombing. All brutal acts of terrorism, with no Muslim perpetrators. If Kilmeade had said, "Not all Jews run media organizations, but all media organizations are run by Jews," wouldn't that be problematic? If he said, "Not all Roman Catholic priests are caught up in abuse scandals, but everyone caught up in abuse scandals is a Roman Catholic priest," might there be some kind of pushback? —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
WHERE THINGS STAND WITH DADT.... There were a handful of developments yesterday afternoon related to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, so let's take a moment to recap where things stand. At an MTV forum, President Obama made clear that, even as a court process continues to play out, his commitment to ending DADT has not changed.
On this, the White House has at least been consistent -- officials want to end DADT, but on their timeline, and through an act of Congress. But every time I hear an official talk about the need for an "orderly" repeal process, I wonder exactly what that means. When the policy changes, it changes. One day certain statements lead to a discharge, the next day they don't. What needs to be "orderly"? Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel, fleshed this out in a little more detail yesterday, noting that a shift away from DADT would require reworking of dozens of policies and regulations involving issues like "housing, benefits, re-accession, military equal opportunity, anti-harassment, standards of conduct, rights and obligations of the chaplain corps, and others." He added that changing "all of the implicated policies and underlying regulations will require a massive undertaking." And with that in mind, as expected, the Justice Department said it intends to appeal the recent court ruling ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and asked the appeals court to allow the existing policy to continue as the case proceeds. At the same time, however, the court-issued injunction is, at least for now, the law the Pentagon has to follow. And so, as of yesterday, DADT is no longer being enforced. That may change quickly if the 9th Circuit stayed the injunction*, but as of this minute, any ongoing investigations and/or discharges of gay or lesbian service members have been brought to a halt. Uncertainty rules the day. What if a soldier came out yesterday, but the 9th Circuit allows DADT to be re-implemented on Monday pending appeal? No one seems to know for sure, which is why the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, among others, is encouraging gay military members not to disclose their sexual orientation until after this is resolved further. One final point. An administration spokesperson said yesterday that the Justice Department "is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged." I spoke to a few legal folks yesterday who agreed with this -- an administration may not be required to appeal rulings, but there is an expectation that an administration will do its due diligence when it comes to defending laws passed by Congress. I mention this because, appealing the DADT ruling doesn't necessarily mean that the Obama administration disagrees with the outcome. * corrected —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
October 14, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan: "The United States is helping senior Taliban leaders attend initial peace talks with the Afghan government in Kabul because military officials and diplomats want to take advantage of any possibility of political reconciliation, Obama administration and NATO officials said Thursday." * The expected appeal: "The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to allow the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays to continue during an appeal." * Wrong direction: "The number of Americans filing first-time applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly increased last week, indicating the U.S. job market is struggling to mend." * A procedural win for health care opponents: "A federal judge in Florida on Thursday ruled that challenges to the healthcare reform law's individual mandate and its Medicaid expansion can proceed." * The foreclosure debacle: "For more than a decade, big lenders sold millions of mortgages around the globe at lightning speed without properly transferring the physical documents that prove who legally owned the loans. Now, some of the pension systems, hedge funds and other investors that took big losses on the loans are seeking to use this flaw to force banks to compensate them or even invalidate the mortgage trades themselves. Their collective actions, if successful, could blow a hole through the balance sheets of big banks and raise fundamental questions about the financial system, financial analysts and a lawmaker said." * Larry Mishel explains the stimulus debate very well, with a helpful metaphor. * Daniel Luzer: "How much can you pay for college? Remember when $50,000 a year was a lot of money? Now that's not even surprising. Cost is still going up, a lot, and now $60,000 is right around the corner." * And in a rather classic example of why I think the notion of conservative populism is silly on a fundamental level, Glenn Beck urged his followers today to start sending donations directly to corporate interests so the U.S. Chamber of Commerce can buy more elections for far-right candidates. The minions took their orders well -- the Chamber's online donation page crashed today after regular folks tried to give their money to the already-extremely-wealthy business lobby. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
THE GOP DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR MCINTURFF'S GOOD ADVICE.... Republican pollster Bill McInturff, a partner of Public Opinion Strategies, believes a fair number of Americans are starting to notice some of the popular benefits of the Affordable Care Act. His advice to his party, then, is to move away from promises of a wholesale repeal, and move towards promises about getting rid of the unpopular stuff*.
Imagine that. You meant to tell me that, come February, Americans don't want to hear Congress announce, "All right everyone, let's debate a national health care plan all over again"? What a surprise. Of course, there's a catch. As Jon Chait noted, "I don't think the GOP's activist base is going to let the party follow [McInturff's] advice." Agreed. In fact, it's one of the aspects of the Republican agenda that I find most amusing. If the midterms go as well as expected for the GOP, Republicans will reach a point early next year at which they have two competing constituencies: (1) a party base that considers repealing every letter of the Affordable Care Act to be at the top of its priority list; (2) an American mainstream that would rather jump out the window than deal with months of political wrangling over health care policy. The first group expects enthusiastic follow-through, and wouldn't mind a government shutdown over this. The second group would very likely be extremely unhappy with this outcome. In context, McInturff may be talking more about this year's campaign rhetoric than next year's governing rhetoric. But once the elections are over, the general advice is equally sound -- Republicans are already viewed unfavorably and have unpopular agenda. Do they annoy the mainstream by starting another fight over health care, vowing to repeal popular policy provisions? Or do they infuriate the base which has been misled into thinking the Affordable Care Act is evil? * Postcript: McInturff is a pollster, not a policy analyst, but it's worth emphasizing that taking out the unpopular parts of the ACA makes the popular parts ineffective. Promising voters they can have all the stuff they want, with no costs to anyone, may work well in a poll, but not in reality. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
BRODER LOOKS AHEAD.... David Broder makes a few competing points in his column today, some of which struck me as more persuasive than others, but the crux of his argument seemed to be that the next Congress probably won't be pretty. The near future will feature "such wild gyrations and produce such untried novices that the partisan warfare of the past two years will seem mild by comparison." On this, we agree. For all the talk that most Americans want a more productive, less rancorous Washington, the electorate appears poised to deliver the exact opposite. But after a series of observations, it was Broder's conclusion that got me thinking.
That strikes me as pretty compelling. But I hope the political establishment appreciates recent history here. The Republican Party moved to the right before suffering serious setbacks in 2006. It moved a little further to the right, and lost another cycle in 2008. It then moved sharply to the very far right, but is nevertheless poised to make sweeping gains in the 2010 midterms. Broder hopes to see some of these newly-elected radicals be "brought back in touch with reality." I'd like to see the same. But parties tend to work on a system of rewards and punishments, and if GOP extremism wins, voters will send a signal to the mainstream that recent radicalism is acceptable -- even preferrable. Broder suggests, as a long-term proposition, the Republicans' break with reality may ultimately sow the "seeds of its own destruction." Perhaps. But those green shoots will be even further away after radicals feel emboldened by an electoral endorsement. —Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
WORST. DISTINCTION. EVER.... The controversy surrounding the Ohio Republican congressional candidate who spent years dressing up as a Nazi officer during WW II re-enactments has just about run its course. The NRCC, which had recruited Rich Iott, has put some distance between him and the party, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) denounced Iott's recreational habits on national television. But before the story goes away entirely, Iott's campaign team wants the public to be aware of a distinction.
The Atlantic's Josh Green, who broke this story on Friday, responded, "If your spokesman is emphasizing distinction between Nazis and SS, your candidacy is probably in trouble." Or, as Josh Marshall added, "It wasn't a Nazi uniform. It was a uniform of the Nazi paramilitary force! Next. It was a concentration camp, not a death camp!" I suppose the campaign feels compelled to say something, and the "just for fun" line wasn't cutting it, but some things are surprisingly tough to spin. —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)
THE LIMITED APPLICATIONS OF TEA PARTY IDEOLOGY.... Stories like these remain common, but I continue to find them entertaining and illustrative. (thanks to Dave for the tip)
At issue is a $400,000 earmark for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study. For locals, the taxpayer money would be well spent, which is why leading Tea Party activists like Mike Murphree have endorsed the earmark. Even right-wing gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (R), a favorite of the party's base, wants the federal government to pony up. This year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another ostensible opponent of government spending and earmarks, requested this earmark specifically. "I'm all for change and all for reform," Graham told the NYT. "But this is where the reality of governing rears its ugly head." You don't say. For the right, government-by-platitudes is surprisingly easy. Spending is bad, earmarks are bad, taxes are bad. They tend to run into a little trouble when this worldview runs into practical applications. South Carolina's other U.S. senator, Jim DeMint, continues to be a "purist" on these issues, so he hasn't backed Graham's request. And as it turns out, the port's plans won't proceed unless both of South Carolina's senators are on board. By sticking to conservative principles above all else, DeMint is hurting his constituents and his state's competitiveness -- and wouldn't you know it, his conservative fans in South Carolina aren't at all pleased, since they're suffering the consequences of DeMint's ideology. Of course, they agree with that ideology when DeMint is blocking funding for other people. But with South Carolina poised to lose billions of dollars in commerce and thousands of jobs, even South Carolina Tea Partiers are discovering the limits of their worldview. One local told the Times, "Senator DeMint's heart is in the right place, but he's wrong on this issue." Another said, "Allow the earmark. This is not an abuse. This is not a bridge to nowhere. This is a bridge to somewhere." What the right generally refuses to realize is that the same sentiment could be expressed for just about every spending project. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
RAND PAUL RETHINKS HIS OWN TAX POLICY.... In a handful of races this year, voters are hearing about a conservative idea that tends to exist on the fringes. The proposal has a nice sounding name -- the "fair tax" -- but it's actually a plan to scrap the existing U.S. tax structure, and replace it with a national sales tax. To crudely summarize, all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare and self-employment taxes would be swept away. In its place, we'd have a large national consumption tax. Since the wealthy spend a small proportion of their income, and everyone else spends far more, it's an extremely regressive approach to tax policy. In Kentucky, extremist Senate candidate Rand Paul (R) was asked about his endorsement of the idea. "I haven't really been saying anything like that," he told reporters.
Not surprisingly, Paul's Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway, thinks voters should be aware of this. "Working people are having a tough enough time making ends meet," Conway campaign spokesperson Allison Haley said. "They can't afford Rand's plan to put a 23 percent sales tax on everything they buy -- from groceries to gas to medicine." Pressed by reporters about his endorsement of the radical tax policy, Paul "declined to answer further questions on the topic." I wonder why. The problem for Paul is that he seems to take positions on issues he doesn't understand, and then can't figure out a way to defend the ideas he endorses. It's generally the first hint of a candidate who isn't quite ready for prime time. As for the campaign, polls show a very close contest. I wonder what would happen if Conway spent the next 19 days talking about "Rand Paul's plan to put a 23 percent sales tax on everything Kentuckians buy -- from groceries to gas to medicine." —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
RUNNING AGAINST REPEAL.... When the Affordable Care Act became law, many of us envisioned a scenario in which proponents could go on the offensive against Republican opponents. I called it "the repeal trap" -- GOP candidates who support repealing health care reform necessarily want to do some very unpopular things. Given the polls and the larger climate, nearly all Dems chose a different course, and are downplaying the landmark health care breakthrough. The trap was available, but Democrats were reluctant to set it. But not all Dems. Rep. Scott Murphy (D), in a tough race in eastern New York, launched a new ad this week, going after his Republican challenger for supporting repeal. "Time for a reality check," the voice-over tells viewers. "Chris Gibson wants to repeal the health care law. Chris Gibson would let insurance companies go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. He would let them restore lifetime limits on coverage. Chris Gibson would eliminate mandatory coverage for preventive care like mammograms and colon screenings. And seniors would pay more for prescription drugs." All of this happens to be true, and it's the part of the GOP's repeal message that gets lost in the shuffle -- the Affordable Care Act isn't popular, but the parts that make up the Affordable Care Act are very popular. When Republicans endorse repeal, they're necessarily taking a stand in support of a specific agenda -- discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, higher taxes on small businesses, tens of millions of Americans losing access to coverage, re-imposition of lifetime caps and rescission rules, and a Medicare prescription drug donut hole. It's gone almost entirely overlooked this campaign season, but this is the Republican approach to health care policy 2011. It doesn't even require hyperbole or half-truths -- this is what repeal means. This is the GOP plan. And it's the kind of plan that Americans won't, and don't, like. It's obviously too late to change major campaign strategies, but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if national Dems started pushing this message months ago. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * Are pollsters ignoring cell-phone-only Americans, who are more likely to be younger and Democratic? The Pew Research Center suggests that's the case, and Mark Blumenthal ponders the evidence. * Dems had high hopes about the open U.S. Senate race in Missouri, but with polls showing Rep. Roy Blunt (R) with stubborn leads, it looks like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is scaling back its investments. The DSCC is, however, boosting its role in Nevada. * And with that in mind, in Nevada's U.S. Senate race, the polls don't offer much guidance. A new Suffolk University poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading Sharron Angle (R) by three, 46% to 43%, while Mason-Dixon shows Angle up by two, 47% to 45%. * Questions of ideology aside, new evidence suggests extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) in Alaska has a serious integrity problem. No wonder he refuses to answer questions about his background. * In Florida's gubernatorial race, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling survey shows Alex Sink (D) leading Rick Scott (R), 46% to 41%. * In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, Quinnipiac had showed a tightening race, but its new numbers show Richard Blumenthal (D) leading Linda McMahon (R), 54% to 43%. * In the state of Washington, a new Time/CNN poll shows incumbent Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading Dino Rossi (R) by eight, 51% to 43%. * In Wisconsin, the new Time/CNN poll shows Ron Johnson (R) leading Sen. Russ Feingold (D), 44% to 52%, and Scott Walker (R) leading Tom Barrett (D) in the gubernatorial race, 52% to 44%. * In West Virginia's U.S. Senate race, the new Time/CNN poll shows Gov. Joe Manchin (D) and John Raese (R) tied at 44% each. * In Delaware's U.S. Senate race, Time/CNN poll shows Chris Coons (D) leading Christine O'Donnell (R), 57% to 38%, while a new Monmouth University poll shows Coons up by the identical margin. * In related news, Rep. Mike Castle, who lost to O'Donnell in a GOP primary, has announced he won't make an endorsement in the race. * And in New Hampshire, a couple of controversies are threatening leading Republican candidates. In the U.S. Senate race, the saga of Kelly Ayotte's politicized emails continues, this time with evidence that Ayotte may have politicized a death penalty case involving a murdered police officer. And in a U.S. House race, former Rep. Charlie Bass (R), hoping to make a comeback, appears to have helped a company with the Bush administration shortly after buying stock in the same company. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
SENATE STRATEGERY IN THE SUNSHINE STATE.... For much of the summer, it looked as if Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I), after leaving the GOP and moving to the left, was well positioned in the state's open U.S. Senate race. But after the primaries, Democratic voters started to rally behind Rep. Kendrick Meek (D), whose post-primary bounce came at Crist's expense, though it hasn't been enough to keep the Democrat from running third. At this point, all the recent polls show the same thing -- Crist and Meek are splitting the center-left, leaving Marco Rubio (R) with double-digit leads. It's prompted some to begin whispering about whether Meek should withdraw, giving Crist a shot at victory, making it far less likely that a far-right Republican will take the seat, and holding out the possibility that Crist would end up caucusing with Dems. The whispers are almost certainly in vain. For one thing, Meek swears up and down he isn't going anywhere, and there's literally no evidence to the contrary. For another, in the exceedingly unlikely chance Meek were to quit, it's too late to remove the Democratic nominee's name from the ballot anyway. But just for the sake of conversation, would it be a good idea? In his column for The Hill, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas raises a good point.
In some conversations with Florida Dems, I've heard the sentiment more than once -- if given a choice, they'd rather win the governor's race than the Senate race, a preference made easier by polls showing the former practically tied, and the latter looking like a blowout. If it takes a grand bargain -- Meek's presence helps Rubio and Sink (and down-ballot Dems) win their respective contests -- it's one many in the party will gladly accept. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
I CAN THINK OF A FEW LETTERS I'D LIKE TO BUY.... Pat Sajak is perhaps best known as the host of the television game-show "Wheel of Fortune," but those who keep up with conservative media outlets also recognize Sajak as a prominent far-right activist. How far-right? The game-show host published an item for National Review this week to question whether public employees should be "able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly."
As a rule, any sentence that effectively begins, "I don't want to disenfranchise law-abiding Americans, but..." isn't going to end well. In this case, Sajak argues, "[I]f, for example, a ballot initiative appears that might cap the benefits of a certain group of state workers, should those workers be able to vote on the matter? Plainly, their interests as direct recipients of thebenefits [sic] are far greater than the interests of others whose taxes support such benefits." It's quite a concept. Voters might be asked to consider a ballot measure on the fire department, which Sajak suggests might be grounds to stop firefighters from voting. Or in the case of a ballot initiative on schools, teachers could be barred from participating in the election. In case this isn't obvious, let's be perfectly clear about the merit of such an idea: this is crazy. Preventing Americans from voting based on whether they'd benefit from the outcome goes against the principles that allow for elections in the first place. It's a feature, not a bug -- voters make decisions, rightly or wrongly, based on whether they expect to benefit, directly or indirectly, from the results. By Sajak's reasoning, if conflict-of-interest concerns might need to disenfranchise Americans, we'd have to start with candidates themselves, insisting that they not vote at all, because of their stake in the outcome. A democracy is not a game-show. Screening for participation makes sense with the latter, but went out with Jim Crow in the former. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (72)
ANGLE TRIES TO EXPLAIN HER SHARIA LAW COMMENTS.... Picking the single craziest thing extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) has ever said is surprisingly difficult, but the Sharia law remarks from about two weeks ago have to be right up there. "Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States," she said with her trademark incoherence. "It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States." None of this made any sense. Dearborn, Michigan, has a large Muslim-American population, but the city follows the same laws as the rest of the country. Frankford, Texas, meanwhile, doesn't exist. This week, the radical Nevadan candidate appeared on a conservative radio talk show, and elaborated on her concerns.
Asked if she thought Sharia law was in place in Dearborn "right now," Angle replied, "I had read that in one place, that they have started using some Sharia law there. That's what I had read." Remember, she's a major-party candidate for the United States Senate. She read somewhere that a predominantly Muslim community had abandoned at least "some" of American law, which was all the evidence she needed to start warning the public about non-existent Sharia law "going on in Michigan." Oh, and for the record, in this radio interview, Angle did not explain why she made up an entire town in Texas to make a point that has no basis in reality. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
DISMISSING A SILLY METRIC.... One of the more common rhetorical tricks of the campaign season is going after Democratic House members based on how often they voted with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. For the right, voting with the Speaker necessarily is scandalous, for reasons that don't make any sense. But if that's the metric conservatives want to go with, it leads to some amusing statistical observations.
Just look at all of those far-right Republicans ... serving as a rubber stamp for that awful Speaker. Of course, in reality, this is all terribly silly. The public generally only hears about major, contested pieces of legislation, but most of Congress' day-to-day work is mundane, and votes to rename post offices aren't especially controversial. Bachmann voted Pelosi's way 58% of the time, but the other 42% were votes on bills that matter. There's no weighting, though, based on significance. It's what allows a growing number of Dems in "red" districts, many of whom voted with Pelosi most of the time, to also run ads showing that they voted with Boehner and Republicans most of the time. Doug Thornell, a spokesman for Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the DCCC, added, "Gosh, I wonder what the Tea Party would think if they knew House Republican leaders vote with Speaker Pelosi most of the time. This analysis just shows how big of a joke the GOP argument against Democrats is." —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
BEING CHENEY MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU'RE SORRY.... Remember Harry Whittington? In February 2006, he was on a quail hunt with then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot Whittington in the face, neck, and torso. Nearly five years later, the 82-year-old Texan still feels the effects of the incident. The pellet that pierced his larynx affects his speech, a piece remains lodged near his heart, and birdshot pellets are still embedded in his eye socket, hairline, and hand. Indeed, even at the time, the shooting caused an erratic heartbeat and a collapsed lung. The Washington Post's Paul Farhi caught up with Whittington, and wrote up an interesting profile of the man in today's edition, including a detailed account of the '06 incident and the years since. But perhaps the most noteworthy angle came at the very end of the piece.
I've long perceived Cheney as some of menacing, malevolent figure, but even by his low standards, this is pretty astonishing. He shot an old man in the face and nearly killed him -- but Cheney couldn't be bothered to apologize? He's had nearly five years, and he couldn't pick up the phone? Remember, after Whittington spent a week in intensive care, he apologized, telling reporters, "My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this past week." But Cheney lacks Whittington's grace. Also note, Cheney may just have a reflexive opposition to expressing any kind of remorse, ever. After Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) approached the former V.P. on the Senate floor in a friendly way, Cheney told him to "go f**k yourself." Instead of apologizing for his tantrum, Cheney soon after went to Fox News to say how pleased he was with himself. It takes a certain degree of class and decency to acknowledge wrongdoing, accept responsibility for mistakes, and express regret. Dick Cheney, regrettably, is sorely lacking in the class and decency department. Indeed, Harry Whittington is still waiting for Dick Cheney to say he's sorry, and given what Cheney did to the country, Whittington isn't the only one waiting who'd like an apology. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
A HARSH SPOTLIGHT IN DELAWARE.... There have been plenty of campaign debates between U.S. Senate candidates this year, including some very competitive contests in which the eventual winner remains unclear. As far as I can tell, not one of these debates was aired lived nationwide on one of the major cable news networks. But Delaware's race has become a unique spectacle because it features one of the most ridiculous major-party nominees in recent history -- and no one's quite sure what she might say or do next. With that in mind, CNN offered live coverage of the faceoff between Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell (R), not because it was especially newsworthy (it wasn't), and not because the race is especially close (it's not), but because a lot of people really do like to watch car crashes. I didn't tune in -- "Stargate: Universe" was on the DVR -- but reading some of the reports this morning, this one has to be my favorite.
Granted, these issues can get confusing, and the fact that O'Donnell confused Iraq and Afghanistan is forgivable, as is her use of the phrase "random withdrawal," whatever that means. But this description of recent history is just astounding: "Well if you remember when we were fighting the Soviets over there in Afghanistan in the '80s and '90s, we did not finish the job, so now we have a responsibility to finish the job and if you are gonna make these politically correct statements that it's costing us too much money, you are threatening the security of our homeland." Remember, O'Donnell, if elected, has already said she'd like to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What else did we learn, other than the fact that Chris Coons apparently has some real policy chops, seems poised to be a fine senator, and knows infinitely more than O'Donnell about every subject? Well, there's the fact that O'Donnell "stuck with hollow platitudes, frequently contradicting herself when pressed for clarity"; she doesn't want to talk about her rejection of modern science; she can't say where she wants to cut the budget; and she can't name any recent Supreme Court rulings. (When asked to name one she didn't like, O'Donnell replied, "Oh gosh. Give me a specific one," which suggests she didn't understand the rather simple question.) There are
October 13, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * It's hard not to feel good about the successful rescue efforts in Chile. As of now, 23 are free, and there are 10 more to go. * Crafting a response to the foreclosure debacle: "Federal regulators on Wednesday urged the nation's lenders to verify that paperwork filed as part of the foreclosure process was properly reviewed and to file new documents if problems are found." * ThinkProgress follows up on its previous reporting, noting today that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce received at least $885,000 from over 80 foreign companies in disclosed donations. * House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is so confident about the outcome of the midterms, he's already starting to make promises to members about valuable committee assignments. * Ordinarily, the departure of a city's public schools' chief wouldn't necessarily be national news, but the departure of D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee is a unique case. * Michael Cohen is back from Afghanistan. He reflects on what he saw as an elections monitor. * It's hard to believe the extent to which right-wing groups have dominated the airwaves in the hopes of buying the elections: "FEC filings show they've spent almost $2.7 million on TV ads. The advertising data we reviewed suggests the nation's leading pro-gun group has aired 1,822 ads across four Senate races. All told, these ten groups have now aired 60,052 ads since the beginning of August." * Congrats to Annie Lowery as she makes the transition from the Washington Independent to Slate. * Not sure what to make of this: "Apparently in the wake of the success of The Social Network, the movie about Facebook's early days, filmmaker Wes Jones is now working on a movie about Karl Rove's time in college. Yup, Karl Rove." * Glenn Beck wonders whether Donald Duck is a government-funded propaganda tool. * And through her House Tea Party Caucus, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) intends to teach a class to incoming congressional freshman, to help protect against what she described as "huge, bureaucratic, large, big government." It should be quite a course. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
RAND PAUL'S PAST VS. RAND PAUL'S FUTURE.... I'm generally inclined to cut political candidates, regardless of party or position, quite a bit of slack when it comes to antics from their college years. So long as at least a couple of decades have gone by, and we're not talking about serious felonies, the "youthful indiscretion" catch-all generally works. With extremist Senate candidate Rand Paul, though, his college years keep coming back to haunt him. In August, we learned that the Kentucky Republican allegedly kidnapped a fellow student, tried to force her to take bong hits, and demanded that she participate in a bizarre ritual involving an "Aqua Buddha." This week, even more of Paul's college years is garnering attention.
It's a stretch to characterize any of today's revelations as scandalous. Indeed, it's largely the opposite -- in college, Paul smoked a lot of pot, was a libertarian, didn't seem especially religious, and worshiped Ayn Rand. If you'd asked me to guess what he was like in the early '80s, this is what I would have come up with. The question, then, is whether any of this should matter in his Senate campaign. The answer, for me, is almost certainly not. I probably wrote plenty of papers in college that I would be embarrassed by now, and I certainly wouldn't want those materials held against me if I sought public office. "Aqua Buddha," in retrospect, got a little too much attention in August, and Paul's college newspaper columns and secret society shouldn't have any real bearing on voters now. So, why does this stuff keep coming up? I suspect it's because Paul remains something of a mystery, even to his allies. He's the frontrunner for a U.S. Senate seat, but all the public really knows is that he's a strange guy with extremist political beliefs who's never held public office, created his own medical accreditation board, opposes most of the landmark legislative accomplishments of the 20th century, and apparently did some bizarre stuff in college. He doesn't know much about public policy; he doesn't know much about Kentucky; and voters don't know much about him. Like the candidate himself, the whole thing is just terribly odd. For the record, so long as he never hurt anyone, I don't care what Rand Paul did in college. I don't think voters should, either. I do care that he's an extremist with a radical policy agenda right now. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
JOHN RAESE'S FRICKIN' LASERS.... Most of what we know about right-wing Senate candidate John Raese (R) in West Virginia has to do with his bizarre ideology (he's a staunch opponent of the minimum wage and Social Security) and his personal finances (he's filthy rich without actually working and moved his family to their home in Florida). But it's important to note that Raese isn't just a clownish extremist; he also has a policy agenda he'd work on in the Senate if elected. For example, Raese has a national defense vision involving a whole bunch of frickin' lasers.
I have a very strong hunch Raese isn't quite sharp enough to understand this, but what he's describing is technology that (a) is decades away from being implemented; (b) would probably cost a lot more than $20 billion; (c) would require extensive international negotiations that may not go especially well; and (d) wouldn't necessarily deal with the more immediate national security threats that have nothing to do with missiles. Oh, and when Raese says we have "laser technology ... that works," that's clearly wrong if he believes we can just push a button and zap missiles from the sky. Of course, if recent history is any guide, Senate Republicans will quickly want to make this guy chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
A SERIES OF LAYERED DECEPTIONS.... As the midterm election season nears its completion, one of the key debates of October is over millions of dollars in undisclosed contributions, some of which may be coming from foreign governments. Americans have been left with a wild-west-style campaign finance system, and it's getting uglier with each passing day. At the center of the fiasco is Karl Rove, ostensibly a "media professional," who also helped create two of the largest partisan attack operations of the year, funded by secret donors. Indeed, while Rove is spending tens of millions of dollars to buy elections with undisclosed money for Republicans, he's also lying rather shamelessly about the larger campaign finance dynamic that's unfolding this cycle. And if that was all, it'd be pretty awful. But Greg Sargent reminds us today that Rove isn't just lying to the public and the media about campaign financing, he's also lying to voters in the ads he's helping finance.
Greg ran a list of Senate campaign ads -- some financed by Rove's attack operations, some by the Chamber -- and literally all of them include demonstrable falsehoods. The layers of deception are getting tough to keep up with. But the bottom line remains the same: Karl Rove and his fellow GOP hatchetmen are raking in obscene amounts of undisclosed money, using it to lie to voters, all the while lying about the campaign finance fiasco that's allowing them to buy an election cycle. Greg concluded, "[T]he sheer scale and dimension of dishonesty and distortion coming from the conservative side of this debate is a very big part of the story. And it's largely going untold." —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
WHEN LIFE RESEMBLES A MONTY PYTHON SKETCH.... There's a classic Monty Python sketch from 1972 called the "Argument Clinic." It goes like this: a man who enjoys a good, substantive debate goes to a business that ostensibly provides one, but after paying his fee, he quickly discovers that the man on the other side of the desk simply contradicts literally everything he says. The customer, exasperated, eventually tries to explain, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." His adversary replies ,"No, it isn't." He tries again, "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." After a short pause, the antagonist responds, "No, it isn't." A little too often, the "Argument Clinic" sketch reminds me of efforts to engage conservative Republicans in any kind of discourse. The NYT, for example, had an item this week about right-wing Senate candidate Pat Toomey (R) in Pennsylvania, which included this gem:
Well, no, of course not. The data is legitimate, but it would tell Toomey what he doesn't want to hear -- so he brushes it aside. Any of us could go to Toomey, data and charts in hand, and point at the evidence showing that income levels dropped after Bush cut taxes. He'd reply, "No, they didn't." The problem, of course, is that the phenomenon goes much further than Toomey. The other day, Rick Santorum insisted on national television that under the Bush administration, poverty rates among poverty among African Americans and among single unmarried women were "at the lowest rate ever in the history of this country." That's not even close to true, but if you went to Santorum and explained that reality shows he's wrong, he'd reply, "No, it doesn't." This comes up just about every day. Here's overwhelming evidence showing that global warming is real. "No, it doesn't." Here's extensive data showing that tax cuts for the wealthy increase the deficit. "No, it doesn't." Here's plain-text proof showing that the Affordable Care Act isn't socialized medicine or a government-takeover. "No, it doesn't." This isn't about lying, per se, though that's certainly a problem, too. This is about an entire political party rejecting reality and replacing it with a fantasy. "Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." It's also the hallmark of American political discourse in the 21st century. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
CANTOR TAKES AN INTEREST IN EARMARKS.... Oh, good, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has another Politico piece, and this time, it's about earmarks.
Let's break this down a bit, because I'm fairly confident Cantor has no idea what he's talking about. The first problem, right off the bat, is that earmarks are not really the scourge Republicans have made them out to be. Some earmarks are actually worthwhile, and the rest represent a very small percentage of the budget. Cantor noted they've become politically problematic "rightly or wrongly." But doesn't the truth matter? If it's "wrongly," shouldn't reality have some bearing on how policymakers proceed? The second problem is that Cantor and his party couldn't have any less credibility on the subject. From 1995 to 2005 -- the heyday in the House for the GOP majority -- the number of earmarks grew by over 400%. That's not a typo; when Republicans ran the joint, they loved earmarks. The number of earmarks dropped, not under GOP rule, but after Democrats took back the majority in 2006. In other words, Cantor is effectively arguing, "Earmarks a problem, so reject the party that's made it better, and embrace the party that created the mess in the first place." The third problem is that Cantor may not actually mean any of this. He and his caucus unveiled a "Pledge to America" recently, and many conservative groups quickly looked for the party's commitment to ban earmarks. The promise was noticeably absent. The fourth problem is that when Cantor claims House Republicans imposed "an immediate moratorium on earmarks" on themselves, it isn't quite true -- several House GOP members continued to request earmarks well after the so-called "moratorium" took effect. Other than the obvious errors of fact and judgment, though, Cantor's piece is a real winner. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... A couple of weeks ago, former Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg (R), hoping to return to Congress this year, was asked whether President Obama is a natural-born citizen. Walberg, apparently a Birther, replied, "You know, I don't know, I really don't know." This morning, Zaid Jilani flagged another recent Walberg appearance, in which the candidate fleshed out his thoughts in more detail.
As a substantive matter, this borders on madness. Walberg is blaming the president for Birther lunacy, envisions a bizarre scenario involving Rush Limbaugh and a Supreme Court justice, and raises the specter of presidential impeachment over an insane conspiracy theory. These are the kind of remarks one might expect from a deranged man yelling on a street corner, not a candidate for the U.S. House. And therein lies the point. I don't care that Tim Walberg is an embarrassment to himself; I care that we've reached the point that seemingly pathological political rhetoric has become so routine, nonsense like this no longer even seems especially controversial. A clip like this one should, under normal/healthy circumstances, end Walberg's career. The release of his remarks would, one can imagine, leave the politician feeling humiliated and discredited. People in Michigan would hear his name and think, "Isn't that the crazy guy who said crazy birther things at a local coffee shop?" But in 2010, nonsense is the norm, and Republican congressional candidates seem to face no meaningful consequences for incidents like these. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers: * Now that Democrats have apparently hurt the feelings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business lobby vowed yesterday to "ramp up" its campaign activities. * As triage rules the day, the Washington Post's Aaron Blake has a list of U.S. House races where Democrats have "canceled all of their ad reservations." The silver lining? Dems are pulling back in two of the races because they're confident of success. * In Nevada's U.S. Senate race, extremist candidate Sharron Angle (R) reportedly raised an astounding $14 million in the third quarter. Dems are skeptical about the claim, given that the Angle campaign hasn't released its cash-on-hand numbers, so it's hard to say how much of the $14 million has already been spent. * On a related note, the latest survey of the race from Public Policy Polling shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading Angle by just one point, 49% to 48%. * In the state of Washington, a new Elway Poll shows incumbent Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading Dino Rossi (R) by a healthy margin, 51% to 38%. Mail-in balloting, however, makes polling in state a little tricky. (thanks to T.K. for the tip) * In Wisconsin's U.S. Senate race, many Dems keep waiting for the gap to narrow, but it's not yet evident in the data. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Sen. Russ Feingold (D) continuing to trail far-right challenger Ron Johnson (R), 51% to 44%. * In Florida's U.S. Senate race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Marco Rubio (R) leading Gov. Charlie Crist (I), 44% to 30%, while PPP shows Rubio up by 11, 44% to 33%. * On a related note, Crist is picking up some fairly high-profile endorsements this week, with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) announcing his support for Crist yesterday, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. endorsing the governor's Senate campaign today. * In Illinois' U.S. Senate race, a new Southern Illinois University poll shows Alexi Giannoulias (D) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R) tied at 37% each. * And in Alaska's U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos shows extremist candidate Joe Miller (R) narrowly leading write-in Republican Lisa Murkowski, 35% to 33%. Democrat Scott McAdams is a competitive third with 26%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (3)
RAESE EYES ABOLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE.... There are a few too many Republican U.S. Senate candidates this year intent on lowering -- or perhaps even eliminating -- the federal minimum wage, but none seem quite as excited about it as West Virginia's John Raese.
As a substantive matter, the notion that the minimum wage has failed to help American workers is pretty silly -- the law has kept millions of working folks out of poverty for decades. Leaving this to the free market just wasn't good enough. But I'm especially interested in the politics of this. Here we have an extremely wealthy conservative, who got rich through a family inheritance, rather than through actual work. He leads "a lavish lifestyle" that's included "over 15 cars, boats and motorcycles, a home in Florida where his family lives full-time and where, records show, he paved the driveway with marble in 2008 as the economy was nosediving." And when taking his message to voters -- who live in a state where the median household income is less than $38,000 -- Raese insists voters send him to the Senate so he can fight to lower inheritance taxes on multi-millionaires, and eliminate the minimum wage altogether. Are West Virginians really persuaded by this? Seriously? —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
DON'T PRIVATIZE THE CDC.... Extremist Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) is basing much of his platform on trying to privatize everything he can get his hands on. The right-wing Colorado lawyer, for example, boasts about his plans to privatize Social Security, and if possible, even Veterans Administration hospitals. But if we're inclined to draw lines to protect some government services from this ideological extremism, I'd like to think the Centers for Disease Control would be free from privatization. Buck doesn't seem to see it that way.
The Buck campaign has responded to the remarks, which have begun generating more attention in Colorado this week, arguing that Buck didn't say he'd privatize the CDC, only that the CDC would be better if it were under private control with private-sector employees. That ought to clear things up. Note, Buck has no evidence that the CDC is inefficient or unproductive now; it's just that he has an ideological crusade to fight. The CDC may be operating flawlessly, but that's not the point -- Buck doesn't care what works; he cares what's conservative. Karl Moeller, executive director of the Campaign for Public Health, noted, "There are certain roles for government and excellent ways the private sector can support disease control and prevention, but controlling disease outbreaks and assessing health risk and determining whether heart disease is spreading ... or on the decline is really not something the private sector can ever really do." Or would really even want to do. If there's a mumps outbreak, there's not much of a profit margin for private industry. When a flu vaccine needs to be distributed, there's not much of a profit margin, either. It's why we created the CDC in the first place -- it's a public agency designed to help public health, whether it's profitable or not. Last year, Paul Krugman noted, "[B]oth sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods -- goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there's no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others." Yep, and I thought the Centers for Disease Control and a public-sector defense against the spread of chronic and infectious diseases was one of them. The U.S. Senate candidate in Colorado seems to have a very different perspective. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
DUDLEY WASN'T A 'MINORITY'.... In Oregon's very competitive gubernatorial race, Republicans have rallied behind retired basketball player Chris Dudley, who seems to have a very narrow lead in the polls. As part of his campaign, Dudley has reached out to minority communities in Oregon with a very awkward message.
The question is not just one of hearsay -- a Dudley spokesperson confirms the candidate made the comment, but argued it was intended to be light-hearted. And perhaps it was; I haven't seen or heard the context. But the fact that Dudley has repeated the line to different audiences suggests he thinks it has at least some merit. It doesn't. Dudley may have been a minority on some NBA teams in the literal sense -- a majority of his teammates were of a different race -- but he was an extremely well-paid athlete working alongside other extremely well-paid athletes. His background as a wealthy basketball player in no way relates to the difficulties African Americans have faced throughout American society. Lew Frederick, the lone African-American man in Oregon's legislature, said, "Frankly it was stunning that he would say something like that. It shows a lack of sensitivity but also shows you do not understand at all what it's like to be a minority and that you have a shallow understanding of what that question is being asked.... He has no idea what it's like to be denied a loan as a minority small businessman, and he's never had problems getting an equal education. For goodness' sake, he's a Yale grad." Dudley's spokesperson insists the Republican "wasn't seriously making the comparison." I hope that's true. But if he could just stop bring the comparison up on the campaign trail, that'd be great. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
NO WAY TO RUN A GOVERNMENT, CONT'D.... When President Obama nominated Michael McCrum to be a U.S. Attorney in Western Texas, there was no reason to think there'd be much of a delay. McCrum, a former assistant U.S. attorney, enjoyed the support of Texas' Democratic congressional delegation and endorsements from both of Texas' Republican U.S. senators. Last week, McCrum told the White House he just couldn't wait anymore. Jonathan Bernstein, who accurately described this as "insane," flagged this item from San Antonio.
Republicans didn't block McCrum specifically, they just slowed down the entire process for confirming anyone for anything, and McCrum's nomination just withered on the vine. After more than a year, McCrum could no longer keep his life on hold -- he hasn't been able to take any cases, and his law practice has "dwindled to almost nothing" -- so he withdrew himself from consideration. Reading a story like this, there's a temptation to focus on how unfair it is for Michael McCrum and qualified nominees like him, who are getting royally screwed by the GOP decision to break the Senate. And to be sure, it is unfair, and I feel for these nominees and their families. But it's also unfair to you, me, and the rest of the country. We benefit when we have a functioning government, with accomplished, honorable patriots willing to work in the public sector on our behalf. When they say, "To hell with it, I can't wait for conservatives in the Senate to stop playing games," the whole country pays a price. Bernstein has some compelling thoughts on improving the presidential appointment process. The sooner officials act, the better. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
WHEN IN DOUBT, SUPPRESS THE VOTE.... The U.S. Senate race in Illinois is one of the most competitive contests in the country, with recent polls showing an extremely tight race between state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) and Tommy Flanagan impersonator, Rep. Mark Kirk (R). Ideally, with just 20 days to go, the campaigns would be doing everything possible to get their supporters ready to vote on Nov. 2. In Kirk's case, however, this is right about the time to work on preventing some voters from participating at all.
The story was originally uncovered by the Illinois-based ArchPundit. Regrettably, this isn't new -- GOP efforts to combat non-existent "voter fraud" have been ongoing for years, but evidence of actual wrongdoing has remained elusive. The fear on the right isn't about anyone trying to "jigger the numbers"; it's about reducing the number of minorities who participate in an election. One can only wonder what it'd be like if candidates like Kirk spent as much energy trying to get these voters to support him as trying to keep them from casting a ballot. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
LEW AND LANDRIEU'S LOST LOYALTIES.... Whether one approves or disapproves of the decision to lift the moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, it seemed as if there'd be at one procedural upside: Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) would finally lift her outrageous hold on Jack Lew's OMB nomination. At least, that's what I'd hoped would happen. Lew was poised to be confirmed easily as White House Office of Management and Budget's new director, but Landrieu intervened, blocking the nomination until the drilling moratorium was overturned. What do Lew and the OMB have to do with drilling? Nothing. Yesterday, the center-right Democrat was pleased with the Obama administration's move on the moratorium, but said she's not quite done shilling for the oil industry. Yesterday's announcement was "good," but it's not enough.
In other words, Landrieu and the oil industry wanted a lift on the moratorium, which the Obama administration delivered. But the oil companies might not be entirely satisfied just yet, so Landrieu wants to delay the ability of the government to function a little longer, to ensure that the industry really is fully pleased. Keep in mind, Landrieu doesn't object to Jack Lew. On the contrary, she's described him as an "outstanding" choice to head the OMB, and would be more to happy to vote for his confirmation. It's just that she's looking for a hostage, and Lew became a convenient choice to exploit -- as soon as Landrieu is sure the oil industry is happy, she'll be gracious enough to let the Senate vote on a key nominee. Until then, she just doesn't care about the consequences. In this case, those consequences aren't just minor inconveniences. The Office of Management and Budget is poised to start writing the 2012 budget, and it needs a budget director. But there is no budget director, because Mary Landrieu, in a move that's been fairly described as "both absurd and irresponsible," has decided her demands are more important the administration's ability to govern. White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs yesterday called Landrieu's hold "outrageous," adding that senators should evaluate Lew "on the merits of being a budget director," instead of "playing politics with issues that are ancillary to what he does." Landrieu's reckless stunt is an embarrassment to the institution, and makes the need for Senate reform even more painfully obvious. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
October 12, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Lifting the drilling ban: "The Obama administration on Tuesday lifted the moratorium on deepwater exploratory oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico -- provided companies follow new safety rules.... One of those new rules is that the CEO of a company responsible for a well must certify it has complied with all regulations. That could make the person at the top of the company liable for any future accidents." * Waiting for the Fed to intervene: "A critical mass of officials at the Federal Reserve appear to favor taking new actions to reinvigorate the lagging recovery in the absence of clear signs of improvement in the economy, according to minutes of the central bank's last policy meeting." * Good news in Chile: "After 68 days deep in a dank, hot purgatory, the first of 33 trapped miners will be hoisted to freedom Tuesday night, Chilean rescue officials told hundreds of reporters who have been covering a dramatic life-and-death struggle that has mesmerized much of the world." * In Afghanistan, the plan to accelerate training of Afghan security forces is going reasonably well, but "the question now is whether these new forces will allow NATO and the Afghan government to reverse the insurgency's momentum and begin reducing the Western presence in the country." * As the debate over undisclosed campaign contributions rages on, wouldn't it be nice if major news outlets care more about the fact that Karl Rove seems to be constantly lying? * As the Washington Post's On Faith section publishes a hateful screed from Tony Perkins on National Coming Out Day, it's easy to imagine Katharine Graham weeping. * Health Care For America Now has a new video out featuring Jack Black as a professional "Mis-Informant." It's pretty funny, and worth checking out. * Do college dropouts cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars? Well, sort of. * Watching Gretchen Carlson and Laura Ingraham bust a move to "Ice Ice Baby" on "Fox & Friends" this morning might be among the more horrifying things I've seen in a while. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... In some right-wing circles, the stiffest competition is the one to see who can hate the Affordable Care Act most. This week, it appears, Oregon congressional candidate and Tea Party favorite Scott Bruun (R) is out in front of the bizarre pack. Reflecting on the ACA, Bruun told a group of voters a few days ago, "You know, when we look at this health care legislation, I would argue that from a fiscal perspective, it's probably the worst piece of legislation this nation's ever passed . From a social perspective, it's right up there, I would argue -- probably the fugitive slave law was worse -- but still, the health care bill was pretty darned bad." It's worth appreciating just how stark raving mad this is. From a "fiscal perspective," Bruun's argument is absurd. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the health care law reduces the deficit considerably over the next decade, and significantly more in the next decade. If we're looking for the most fiscally irresponsible "piece of legislation this nation's ever passed," this wouldn't even come close to making the list. From a "social perspective," Bruun is comfortable comparing the Affordable Care Act to the fugitive slave act? Howard at The Commander Guy's Post emails to remind me, "What the fugitive slave act did was to provide federal enforcement of the so-called property right of human bondage. The act gave slave catchers the right to kidnap and claim any African American residing in a free state." And as far as this congressional candidate is concerned, health care reform is "probably" better than the fugitive slave act. This is the kind of policy analysis one might expect from an unhinged right-wing blogger, or a deranged radio-show host, but Scott Bruun is currently seeking federal office -- and enjoys the enthusiastic support of his party, despite (because of?) his extremism. Bruun will face freshman Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) in November. Nate Silver considers it a competitive race, and lists Bruun as having a 47.1% chance of getting elected to Congress. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS PENTAGON TO STOP ENFORCING DADT.... About a month ago, U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips found that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is unconstitutional, violating due process and the First Amendment. Phillips added that the policy has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services, "impeding military readiness and unit cohesion." At that point, the judge called for the plaintiffs to submit a proposed injunction limiting the law. Today, Phillips ordered the military to "immediately ... suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" policy.
Phillips added that the existing DADT policy "infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers," a truth that seems so painfully obvious, it still amazes me to hear conservatives argue otherwise. The Justice Department will have 60 days to appeal to the left-leaning 9th Circuit, which seems likely. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn't comment on the legal strategy, but reiterated that President Obama "will continue to work as hard as he can to change the law that he believes is fundamentally unfair." While we wait for the legal wrangling to continue, these court victories continue to be heartening developments. The DADT policy, while considered a compromise move when crafted nearly 20 years ago, is an embarrassment today. The notion that the United States military, in the 21st century and in the midst of two wars, would kick out able-bodied, well-trained, patriotic volunteers, based solely on their reluctance to lie about who they are, is indefensible. Ideally, as glad as I am to hear of court orders like this one, I'd be even more satisfied if they were rendered moot by congressional approval of scrapping the DADT policy altogether. But last month, Senate Republican voted unanimously to prevent a debate on a defense spending bill that would have cleared the way for DADT repeal. While the court avenue is going well, the Senate may yet take up the same spending bill, with the DADT provision, in the lame-duck session. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
HATCH SEES 'IDIOCY' IN SCRAPPING SPENDING.... There's a key similarity between health care reform and the Recovery Act -- it's a lot more popular in specific than in general. Ask folks if they like the Affordable Care Act, and they're likely to say, "No." Ask them if they like what's in the Affordable Care Act, and you get a very different answer. Similarly, ask a Republican lawmaker if they approve of the stimulus, and he/she is certain to say, "Of course not." But ask him/her about stimulus projects in their district, and wouldn't you know it, the spending looks a whole lot better. Zaid Jilani reports today on the Central Utah Project (CUP), which "has provided much-needed irrigation and power generation for the state's citizens." Utah Republicans prefer not to talk about it, but the CUP initiative received an enormous boost from the stimulus, installing a new pipeline, creating jobs, etc. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) is now worried the federal spending -- investments Hatch and his party are generally desperate to cut -- might dry up.
Of course, there are all kinds of officials in every state, all of whom believe projects in their area are "right," and that cutting funding for them would be "idiocy." Something for Hatch to keep in mind when his GOP cohorts vow to slash spending on "wasteful" programs. —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
BLOOMBERG POLL SHOWS UNPOPULAR PARTY POISED TO MAKE HUGE GAINS.... Some of the descriptions of the results are clearly misleading, but there are some noteworthy results in the new Bloomberg poll. Most notably, Republicans may be poised to win at least one chamber of Congress, but they're still strikingly unpopular.
Going through the results (pdf), it's tempting to think the landscape doesn't look especially favorable to the GOP at all. While Republican leaders say the nation's focus should be on deficit reduction and spending cuts, the American mainstream wants to focus on job creation. What's more, when it comes to actually trying to reduce the deficit, the most popular ideas are the progressive ones. But perhaps my favorite part of the poll was on health care.
For reform proponents, that sounds discouraging, right? It is, right up until the poll goes through the specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and finds that some of them enjoy very strong support. Americans are inclined to support repeal of the health care law, right up until they're told what's in the health care law. Eliminating lifetime caps? A 54% majority doesn't want this to be repealed. Protections for those with pre-existing conditions? A 75% majority doesn't want this to be repealed. Insurance exchanges for the uninsured? A 60% majority doesn't want this to be repealed. Allowing kids up to age 26 to remain on their parents' policies? A 67% majority doesn't want this to be repealed. Filling the Medicare donut hole? A 73% majority doesn't want this to be repealed. Republicans really do seem to believe their repeal push next year will be a huge political winner for them. There's a reason the White House doesn't seem especially nervous. In related news, the same Bloomberg poll showed Dems with a slight, three-point advantage on the generic ballot, the president's approval rating is still 47%, and the three most popular political figures in the country are Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama, in that order. —Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
AFFECTION FOR PROJECTION.... Last week, we saw the latest example of Karl Rove's borderline-pathological habit of identifying some of his own ugliest, most malicious qualities, and then projecting them onto those Democrats he hates most. It's strikingly common. In yet another classic example, Rove, for no apparent reason, insisted President Obama has an "enemies list." It prompted Jon Chait to flag this gem from Rove's greatest-hits package.
For those keeping score at home, this ties in nicely to the larger pattern. Rove has spent his professional life engaged in political sleaze, so he's accused Obama of adding "arsenic to the nation's political well." Rove ran a White House that embraced a "permanent campaign," so he's accused the Obama team of embracing a "permanent campaign." Rove embraced the politics of fear, so he's accused Obama of embracing the politics of fear. Rove relied on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted " political events, so he's accused Obama of relying on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted" political events. Rove looked at every policy issue "from a political perspective," so he's accused Obama of looking at every policy issue "from a political perspective." Rove snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan, so he's accused Obama of snubbing snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan. Rove had a habit of burying bad news by releasing it late on Friday afternoons, so he's accused Obama of burying bad news by releasing it late on Friday afternoons. Rove questioned the motives of those with whom he disagreed, so he's accused Obama of questioning the motives of those with whom he disagrees. A lesser hack might find it difficult to launch political attacks that are ironic, wrong, hypocritical, and examples of projection, all at the same time, but Rove is a rare talent. —Steve Benen 12:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
GUESS WHO'S VOTING? REDUX.... We talked about this the other day, but it occurred to me readers might have missed an item posted on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend, so I thought I'd offer a quick reminder. About a week ago, I had an idea for a short election-related video, so I jotted down a few notes. Of course, I don't know anything about turning back-of-the-napkin ideas into a finished product, so I took the concept to my friend Bill Simmon, a skilled filmmaker who knew exactly how to convert my script into a fun little clip. Here's what we came up with. I've been encouraged by the positive feedback thus far -- it's especially heartening to see so many folks pass the video around via email, social networking sites, and their own blogs -- but I continue to be interested in reader reactions to this.
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 West Virginia's closely-watched U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Gov. Joe Manchin (D) back out in front of John Raese (R), 48% to 45%. * A Nevada woman has come forward to say she worked for gubernatorial hopeful Brian Sandoval (R), despite being an illegal immigrant at the time. This is particularly relevant, given that Sandoval is running on an anti-immigrant platform. * In Florida's gubernatorial race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott (R) with the narrowest of leads over state CFO Alex Sink (D), 45% to 44%. * Speaking of Florida, President Obama has cut a radio ad for Rep. Kendrick Meek's (D) U.S. Senate campaign, calling Meek "a powerful voice for Floridians." * Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) appears undamaged by her humiliating debate performance. A new Rocky Mountain poll shows her leading state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D), 46% to 35%, among likely voters. * In Colorado's gubernatorial race, Republican Dan Maes, currently running third in the poll, is blaming his supporters for his current electoral difficulties. * As Democratic triage efforts begin in earnest, the national party is pulling back in its investments in support of Reps. Steve Driehaus of Ohio, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania, and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota. * After revelations about his habit of dressing up like a Nazi for several years, Republican congressional candidate Rich Iott in Ohio was quietly thrown under the GOP bus. Yesterday, Iott made clear he's not happy about it. * In the state of Washington, Dems appear to have a rare pick-up opportunity in the 8th congressional district. A new PPP poll commissioned by Daily Kos shows incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert (R) leading by just three over his Democratic challenger, Suzan DelBene, 49% to 46%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
FRAUD FILES -- RICK SCOTT EDITION.... The first time I remember seeing a campaign ad structured like a crime show was the spot targeting scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter (R) in Louisiana. Dems went with an ad that looked nothing like a traditional campaign commercial, but rather, looked like a documentary-style program -- along the lines of "America's Most Wanted" -- profiling suspected criminals. It even had a crime-show name: "Forgotten Crimes." Democrats in Florida have launched a similar spot, targeting disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott, Republicans' gubernatorial nominee, who happens to have a "history of running health care companies accused of fraud." The campaign ad, like in Louisiana, looks nothing like the usual spot, and comes with the name, "Fraud Files." The narrator tells the viewer about "a money trail that leads from taxpayers' wallets straight to the pockets of one mysterious man." It highlights Scott's alleged criminal background, the alleged fraud scandals, and the fact that Scott pleaded the Fifth Amendment 75 times when asked about his role in his companies' scandals. For good measure, we see that Scott gave a deposition just days before he announced his campaign -- answering questions about another fraud scandal -- but he refuses to release it to voters. All of this, by the way, has the added benefit of being true. It's dramatized to get voters' attention, but Dems didn't even need to stretch the truth to make Scott look bad -- they just had to put the facts in a two-minute-long clip. Airing a two-minute long ad is extremely expensive, but the more Floridians see "Fraud Files," the worse it is for Scott. The clip really is devastating. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
KEN BUCK'S CALLOUSNESS.... When it comes to women's issues, extremist Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) of Colorado isn't exactly a champion. He is, for example, on record supporting bans on certain forms of birth control and the criminalization of all abortion rights, even in cases of rape or incest. During his GOP Senate primary, Buck even mocked his opponent for wearing high heels. But revelations about Buck's handling of a 2005 rape case have put the candidate's attitudes towards women in an even more painful light.
At the time, a 21-year-old student had gotten together with a man she used to date. Intoxicated, the young woman invited her alleged attacker to her apartment. She apparently passed out, but woke up to find herself being violated. The attacker conceded to police that the woman had said "no," and the police report added, "he realized he had done something wrong." The same report went on to say he felt "shame and regret" and even tried to "apologize" to the victim. Despite all of this, Buck concluded the case wasn't worth prosecuting. In his conversation with the victim, in which Buck was recorded without his knowledge, he argued, "It appears to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him." I realize that prosecutors have a variety of factors to consider before filing criminal charges, but in this case, Buck was not only dismissive of an apparent rape victim, he had a police report in which the attacker practically confessed to the violent crime. I've long questioned Ken Buck's judgment. He does, after all, support repealing the 17th Amendment, privatizing Social Security, eliminating the Department of Education, scrapping the federal student loan program, and has even said liberals are a bigger threat than terrorists. But these revelations about his record as a county prosecutor seem to make his judgment look even worse. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
ANGLE MAKES UP CITIES, TOO.... About a week ago, extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) appeared at a town-hall-style event, and was asked about "Muslims taking over the U.S." In right-wing circles, the notion of some kind of invasion that would leave white Christians as a persecuted minority is fairly common, and the right-wing Nevadan stoked the fires of fear. "Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States," she said with her trademark incoherence. "It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States." The underlying point of this was completely made up, since no one has allowed a "foreign system of law" to "take hold" in any municipality or government situation in our United States." But as it turns out, that wasn't the only thing Angle manufactured. Dearborn, Michigan, has a large Muslim-American population, which in Angle's mind, makes it a hotbed for "Sharia law," despite this being insane. But what about Frankford, Texas? After reading Angle's quote, I assumed Frankford, which I'd never heard of, must be another community with a large Muslim-American population. But as it turns out, that's not quite true.
In other words, Sharron Angle made up a town in order to spew nonsense about a made-up threat. I really don't think she's well. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
SENATE CANDIDATE DECLARES HIS BACKGROUND OFF LIMITS.... To borrow a line from Tricia McKinney, the first rule of Joe Miller Club is, do not talk about Joe Miller.
The problem, apparently, is that Miller wants to talk about all the things he wants to do if he's elected to the U.S. -- oppose the minimum wage, oppose unemployment aid, oppose Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- without all these pesky questions about his skills, background, qualifications, and professional history. In the latest in a series of controversies, there's some evidence to suggest Miller used public resources during an effort to oust a state Republican Party chairperson in 2008. Miller has responded to the evidence by labeling all questions "an attack ... based upon avoiding the issues." Similarly, we've learned that Miller and his family have accepted government benefits that the candidate doesn't believe should exist -- including farm subsidies and Medicaid benefits -- and has serious financial problems, despite a pledge to help restore fiscal responsibility to Washington. Miller has said none of these aspects of his background are relevant because, well, he says so. This happens a fair amount with first-time candidates who know very little about the political process -- they want votes, not questions. Their platform is their vision, and their credibility and qualifications are inconvenient details, better left ignored. The problem is those darn voters, who often like to know a little something about those they elect to powerful statewide offices. In general, the public doesn't respond to "just vote for me anyway" in response to reasonable questions, but it's a strange year, so maybe extremists like Joe Miller can get ahead regardless of his silence. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
RAND PAUL VS. THE BIG DOG.... We've recently seen a shift in Republican attitudes towards former President Bill Clinton. While the GOP tried to destroy the Big Dog not too long ago, much of the party has decided maybe he wasn't so bad after all. It appears, though, that the sentiment is far from universal.
There were any number of ways for Paul's campaign to respond to this, including the option of not responding at all, which made it all the more interesting to see the Republican Senate hopeful choose the ugliest road possible. "I'm not sure I would trust a guy who had had sexual relations with an intern. I mean, do you think he's an honorable person?" Paul said at a campaign stop. "I think that's disgusting. It gets to the point where we discount what he says." Really? Twelve years later, Paul thinks it's sensible to play the Lewinsky card? Look, Clinton was calling Paul out in a way that made the GOP candidate look bad -- with observations that happened to be true -- but to argue that Clinton's affair leaves him permanently discredited is crazy, even by Paul standards. Indeed, it sets up a great opportunity to evaluate who has more credibility -- the popular two-term former president who carried Kentucky twice, or the odd right-wing ophthalmologist with an extremist worldview and very little knowledge about the state he's running in. If Rand Paul wants to make this week about whether Bill Clinton knows what he's talking about, I suspect Democrats would gladly oblige. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
A DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH.... Alabama Senator Richard Shelby (R) has refused to allow a vote on Peter Diamond's nomination to the board of governors of the Federal Reserve. As far as the conservative lawmaker is concerned, MIT's Diamond, among the most accomplished economists of his generation, lacks the necessary qualifications. Yesterday, Diamond won a Nobel Prize in economics, which in turn made Shelby look even more foolish, and created an opportunity for the White House.
Even now, that appears exceedingly unlikely. In a statement, Shelby said he just doesn't care: "While the Nobel Prize for Economics is a significant recognition, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences does not determine who is qualified to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System." That's true, of course; the Nobel committee is not responsible for determining who's qualified to serve. But it's worth emphasizing a little detail Shelby may have forgotten -- that responsibility rests with the U.S. Senate, not one conservative member. Diamond's nomination has been pending since April, and in case Shelby's forgotten, we're facing some difficult economic times and could use a functioning Fed. The nomination has cleared committee, is ready for a floor vote, and if Shelby opposes Diamond, he can vote against him. But in 2010, that's no longer good enough. Shelby has decided one of the nation's most accomplished economists, a celebrated expert in employment policy, not only failed to earn his support, but is so offensive to Shelby's far-right sensibilities that he's forbidding the Senate from voting at all. This is no way to run a country. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
October 11, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * It's always best to keep hopes in Middle East peace talks in check: "Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered on Monday to extend a freeze on building in West Bank settlements if the Palestinian leadership declares that it recognizes Israel as the Jewish state. The offer was promptly rejected by the Palestinians." * Criminal negligence in Hungary: "The managing director of the company whose reservoir unleashed a lethal torrent of red sludge on three villages last week has been arrested, the Hungarian prime minister announced before Parliament on Monday." * Progress in the rescue efforts in Chile: "Rescuers on Monday finished reinforcing the hole drilled to bring 33 trapped miners to safety and sent a rescue capsule nearly all the way to where the men are trapped, proving the escape route works. That means that if all goes well, everything will be in place at midnight Tuesday to begin pulling the men out of their subterranean purgatory." * Just what our discourse needs: a 10-stop Dick Cheney speaking tour. * Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) told a right-wing crowd over the weekend "that he would support a federal constitutional amendment that would allow two-thirds of the states to collectively repeal a federal enactment." That's a pretty horrible idea. * On a related note, Dave Weigel was on hand for the under-covered event, and has a fascinating, albeit disturbing, report. * Fingers crossed: "Doctors have injected millions of human embryonic stem cells into a patient partially paralyzed by a spinal cord injury, marking the beginning of the first carefully designed attempt to test the promising but controversial therapy, officials announced Monday." * Happy 10th blogoversary -- sure, that's a word -- to Andrew Sullivan. * And finally, much of the media and a few too many political observers spent the day obsessing over a book that was tossed on stage at President Obama's rally in Philadelphia yesterday afternoon. Many took this as a sign of protest and anger at the president. In reality, the book was thrown by "an overzealous author who just wanted to toss his book into the president's reading list." The media's fascination -- the far-right blogs' hyperventalating -- was for naught. Again. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
SOROS ON THE SIDELINES.... I suspect in the minds of many conservatives, George Soros remains a dangerous boogeyman, who's secretly working with ACORN to help Democrats salvage the midterm elections. But ACORN is long gone, and Soros has decided to "sit out" this election cycle altogether.
I'm not sure what that means. Soros is (a) concerned about health care and environment; (b) convinced the far-right Republican Party will have a detrimental effect on the issues he cares about; and (c) sitting out the elections anyway. What people do with their money is obviously their business, and if Soros wants to stay on the sidelines, that's his call. But the reasoning here escapes me. Soros wants to see U.S. advances on health care and environmental policy, but he doesn't want to make investments to at least try to protect his own chosen priorities? Jon Chait suggested that Soros may just have "a desire not to be associated with defeat." Perhaps. But Soros was involved in 2004, John Kerry lost, and Soros kept with it for the next two cycles. The country -- and Soros' principal goals-- were better for it. If he had reason to believe Republican majorities would be fine when it came to health care and the environmental policies, I could see why someone like Soros could justify a passive, lackadaisical attitude. But if he's genuinely worried, watching this unfold without lifting a finger is hard to understand. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
THE LIMITS OF RESPONSIBILITY.... We talked earlier about Byron Williams, who launched a violent scheme after having been inspired by some of his favorite deranged media personalities, including Glenn Beck. I tried to be careful about not holding Beck directly responsible for Williams' shootings, but Kevin Drum argues I still went too far.
Oddly enough, I find this pretty persuasive, too. I can appreciate how wishy-washy this sounds, but I'm genuinely conflicted on the point. I'd love for Beck, Limbaugh, and others like them to lower the rhetorical temperature, and I'm inclined to believe some of the violent incidents we've seen might be less likely if they did. But I also believe lunatics who commit crimes are responsible for their own actions. Unless Beck or someone like him actually starts recommending violence, there's no real, meaningful, direct culpability. But if you've seen/heard Beck's show, you know his message dances along a dangerous line. Atrios also had a compelling take.
That's exactly right. Beck's message, in effect, goes like this: don't commit acts of violence, but there's a dangerous, secret cabal trying to deliberately destroy your country. Don't commit acts of violence, but the future of civilization is at risk. Don't commit acts of violence, but Thomas Jefferson talked about the value of spilling tyrants' blood. Don't commit acts of violence, but Nazi/Soviet/Jihadist forces want to take away your children's future. Don't commit acts of violence, but someone needs to do something or we're all doomed. Don't commit acts of violence, but don't forget the importance of "reading between the lines" when it comes to Beck's rhetoric and his underlying message. And at that point, Beck provides a detailed list of all the evil, nefarious folks who will crush your country and destroy everything you hold dear -- but don't commit acts of violence. I know Kevin's right. Really, I do. But to augment an old metaphor, I feel like Beck is close to the point at which he's in a crowded theater shouting, "Fire! But try not to trample anyone. There's a fire right here in this very theater that may kill you! But there's no need to make a mad dash for the exits." Do those caveats absolve Beck of responsibility? Probably, yes. If asked, Beck could honestly say, "I specifically encouraged people not to trample others," and he'd be right. But if it seems unsatisfying, it's because the rest of the context makes it hard for Beck to wash his hands of the disasters left in his wake. —Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)
SUBTLE, CONTRADICTORY NUANCES.... A new study is available from the Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University on Americans' attitudes about the size and scope of government. It may not surprise you to learn the public's demands and expectations aren't always consistent. Indeed, given the way the political winds are blowing, it's tempting to think Americans have become reflexively anti-government. And in the abstract, they are -- spending cuts and limited government continue to poll quite well. It's those subtle, contradictory nuances that matter.
When it comes to handing out letter grades, no one and nothing in Washington fares well, though the worst grade went to congressional Republicans -- you know, the ones poised to make huge gains in the midterm elections. It'd be unfair to characterize the results as necessarily left-leaning, because that's not quite the picture the numbers paint. People blame the government for the country's current predicaments -- reality suggests the opposite is true, but the public can sometimes get questions like these wrong -- and perceive the government as being unable to solve problems and having a negative impact on their daily lives. But the attitudes of the Republican base are still far from a majority. An active government involved in defense, health care and combating poverty enjoys broad support. They also believe it's better to have the government spend to boost the economy than to focus on the deficit. Just as importantly, while a majority of Americans in 1994 wanted their congressional representatives to cut spending in their area, regardless of economic consequences, nearly six in 10 now want their lawmakers to "fight for additional government spending in their districts to spur job creation." Indeed, the differences between attitudes now and the last time Republicans seized control of Congress are pretty interesting.
So, to summarize, Americans want less government spending but "continue to see major areas of government spending as essential." They don't like government in their daily lives, but don't want government to retreat from their daily lives. They want spending cuts, but not to anything in particular, and certainly not to their local areas. There's a reason our discourse isn't more constructive. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
SETTING THE DISCLOSURE RECORD STRAIGHT.... One of the key underlying factors in the controversy over "independent" right-wing groups buying the 2010 elections is the simple matter of disclosure. Even the dispute over the role of foreign funds comes down to the fact that we're dealing with massive amounts of undisclosed money. Voters see the campaign-changing attack ads, but are not allowed to know who's paying for the message. The right has a new response to this: the other side does the same thing, so the complaints amount to hypocrisy. To hear conservatives tell it, there are labor unions and progressive organizations like MoveOn.org doing the same thing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is doing -- running ads targeting candidates thanks to secret donations. The flaw in the argument: it's not true. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough made the claim this morning, but to his credit, retracted it on the air. Karl Rove and other Fox News personalities have made the same argument, and wouldn't you know it, they've been reluctant to correct their mistake. Greg Sargent sets the record straight today, noting that those drawing the parallel are "just flat out lying."
Rove specifically claimed on the air that the National Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn are engaged in the midterms, but "do not report their donors." But the claim about MoveOn is wrong, and none of the other groups he mentioned are running campaign ads at all. Either Rove has no idea what he's talking about -- which is unlikely, given that he helped create and fund some secretive campaign operations this year -- or he's shamelessly lying on national television. Greg added that the Fox News host made no effort to challenge Rove's falsehoods, and unlike Scarborough, there's been no retraction. "[I]t would be nice if someone on Fox or wherever else at least tried to hold these folks to even a minimum standard of accuracy or honesty," Greg concluded. It would, indeed. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
WHEN A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION MATCH UP NICELY.... It's one of those situations that's so blindingly obvious, it can be frustrating to even talk about. On the one hand, we have crumbling American infrastructure, with a very strong need for major road, rail, and airport improvements. On the other, we have massive unemployment in the construction industry. Hey, one might think, why don't we hire workers in need of a job to do infrastructure work, which in turn would improve the economy, boost public safety, help the environment, and improve American competitiveness? With this in mind, after meeting with members of his cabinet, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of Transportation, mayors, and governors, President Obama spoke this morning on the need for infrastructure investment. First, on the seriousness of the problem...
...and then on the sensible solution.
It's only fair to note that the president's proposal should probably go even further -- his infrastructure plan has real merit, but it's also fairly modest given what's possible and what's needed. Still, Obama's vision is solid, and his willingness to focus attention on this is heartening. We have an obvious problem -- weak economy, crumbling infrastructure, unemployed construction workers -- with an equally obvious solution. Remember, the price of raw materials is incredibly low right now. Bang for our buck, there hasn't been an opportunity like this one -- stretching our infrastructure dollars very far -- in a long time. We can do an enormous amount of good on the cheap. So what's the problem? Congress is broken, "spending" is somehow perceived as "bad," and desperately needed infrastructure investments probably won't happen because Republicans won't let it. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
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. * Despite any rumors you may have heard to the contrary, Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) insists he will "absolutely not" end his U.S. Senate campaign in Florida. There's some evidence to suggest Meek's unlikely withdrawal might help prevent Republican Marco Rubio from winning the open seat. * West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D), slipping in his once-safe U.S. Senate campaign against right-wing Floridian John Raese (R), is moving quickly to the right. In a new TV ad, Manchin literally targets a cap-and-trade bill with a rifle, and he's also now open to repealing the entire Affordable Care Act. * In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, another independent poll shows a competitive contest, with extremist ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) leading state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) in a Braun Research poll, 43.4% to 39.5% among likely voters. * In Alaska, extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller (R)* believes Medicaid benefits are unconstitutional -- unless he's the one receiving Medicaid benefits. * Massachusetts' gubernatorial race has taken an ugly turn, with independent Timothy Cahill turning the campaign "into a courtroom thriller, complete with charges of espionage, conspiracy and subterfuge." * In Florida's gubernatorial race, the latest Mason-Dixon poll shows state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) leading disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott (R), 44% to 40%. * Michigan's gubernatorial race appears to be all but over, with the latest EPIC MRA poll showing Rick Snyder (R) leading Virg Bernero (D) by 20 points, 49% to 29%. * And in Texas' 17th, a key House race this year, Rep. Chet Edwards' (D) Republican challenger, who has based much of his campaign on opposition to taxpayer-financed bailouts, "once led his company through a bankruptcy that let it avoid a $7.5 million debt to the U.S. government." The GOP candidate, Bill Flores, also appears to have lied about having repaid all of his debts. *Party affiliation corrected —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
'LIKE A SCHOOLTEACHER ON TV'.... As promised, Media Matters has published its "Progressive Hunter" piece, featuring an extensive interview with Byron Williams, the right-wing extremist who, over the summer, loaded up his mother's truck with firearms, put on body armor, and headed to San Francisco with the intention of starting a violent rampage. He didn't reach his destination -- Williams initiated a shootout with police in Oakland after being pulled over for driving erratically -- but his goal was to "start a revolution" with bloodshed at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation. Williams, we now know, was inspired in large part by Fox News' Glenn Beck, who even helped influence his targets for violence. The Media Matters report notes not only Williams' chilling story, but the larger context.
Williams, in particular, seems to have based much of his twisted worldview on Beck's programs, David Horowitz propaganda, and the work of Internet conspiracist and repeated Fox News guest Alex Jones, all of whom helped inspire Williams' notion of a "revolution." Williams concedes that Beck doesn't instruct his followers to commit violence, but the host will "give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need." He added that Beck is "like a schoolteacher on TV." As Dana Milbank noted yesterday, Williams' comments "show precisely why Beck is dangerous: because his is the one voice in the mass media that validates conspiracy theories held by the unstable." He's not calling for violence, but Beck is "giving voice and legitimacy to the violent fringe." I continue to strongly believe criminals are ultimately responsible for their crimes, but Beck is whipping up a confused and easily-misled mob into a rage, lying to them with deranged theories, and pointing them in a direction. That's legal and his speech is protected by the First Amendment. But the sooner Beck, his network, his sponsors, and the media conglomerate that signs his checks show some restraint, and take some responsibility for dousing a simmering flame with lighter fluid, the safer we'll be. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
A LITTLE LATE TO FEAR NEWT EMBARRASSMENT.... Just a few weeks ago, Don Imus asked Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to reflect on disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), and his role in the modern Republican Party. Gingrich, Cantor said, "is still very much a counselor, adviser to us." Cantor added, "He is always around to allow us the benefit of the lessons he learned in all of that. He's an idea factory." Whether Cantor's kind words were sincere or perfunctory wasn't entirely clear, but Politico noted that others in the GOP aren't necessarily thrilled with Gingrich's bizarre, wild-eyed antics.
Even some Republicans, the piece notes, have found that Gingrich "never learned the difference between going to the edge and going over it," as evidenced by his recent lunacy suggesting America's elected leadership is as dangerous a threat as the Nazis or the Soviets. "He knows how to appeal to and arouse the conservative coalition," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "But he also has a tendency to go one stop further than he should." That's understating the case, though I appreciate the sentiment. But isn't it a little late for Republicans to start feeling Gingrich-related embarrassment? After all, according to Cantor, the disgraced former House Speaker "is still very much a counselor, adviser" to congressional Republicans. If he's more trouble than he's worth, why not just cut the nut loose? Why not ask him to stop appearing on television every other hour, making the GOP look ridiculous? —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
THE LIBERAL APPROACH THAT WASN'T TRIED.... When the Bush presidency started to implode, and the entire Republican agenda was exposed as a tragic farce, the right came up with a novel defense: the conservative agenda wasn't really the conservative agenda. Mark Schmitt wrote an item for us three years ago this month about the GOP attempts to escape the consequences of their own failure: "'Oh, that?' they will say. 'That wasn't conservatism. That was something completely different.' It started out as conservatism, they say, but was corrupted...." Most reasonable people rolled their eyes, knowing that Republicans got everything they wanted -- tax policy, regulatory policy, fiscal policy, etc. -- and it failed on a spectacular level. Suggesting that conservatism wasn't actually tried was silly. I can see us heading towards a very similar debate very soon. As we talked a bit about yesterday, the right will now say, "Well, we tried the left's way, and the economy is still in deep trouble, so liberalism has been discredited." When progressives respond, "Wait, this really wasn't the liberal approach," we'll probably see more eye-rolling. But progressives will happen to be telling the truth. As Paul Krugman noted this morning, "Here's the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can't create jobs. Here's what you need to know: The whole story is a myth."
Something to keep in mind for the crowd that says, "We need to break with sensible economic policies, since they clearly didn't work." That crowd is wrong. —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
RICHARD SHELBY, THE NOBEL COMMITTEE IS HOLDING ON LINE ONE.... President Obama sent three qualified nominees to the Senate several months ago to serve on the board of governors of the Federal Reserve. Two were confirmed after significant delays. The third, MIT's Peter Diamond, was blocked by Senate Republicans. It appears that the Nobel Prize committee was more impressed with Diamond than the GOP was.
Keep in mind, he appears to have been blocked by one conservative senator, Alabama's Richard Shelby (R), who said Diamond, among the most accomplished economists of his generation, lacked the necessary qualifications for the Fed. Diamond's Nobel prize in economics makes Shelby look a little more ridiculous this morning. The Alabaman has argued that Diamond's background is not in monetary policy, which is true, but it's hardly a prerequisite -- of the five sitting Fed governors at the time of Diamond's nomination, three are not specialists in monetary economics. One of Bush's appointees has no advanced degree in economics and has never done any academic research in the field. Shelby never raised questions about his qualifications and didn't hesitate to support that nomination. Diamond's expertise -- the scholarship that produced a Nobel prize -- is in understanding competing kinds of unemployment. Paul Krugman, himself a Nobel winner, recently noted that "there's an ongoing dispute over what the rise in vacancies without a corresponding fall in unemployment means," and as luck would have it, Diamond "pioneered the whole study of this subject." And yet, Republicans haven't allowed Diamond to have an up-or-down vote. Here's hoping the Nobel announcement can propel Diamond's nomination in the lame-duck session.
GOP MINORITY OUTREACH TAKES ANOTHER HIT.... Once in a while, Republican Party officials will argue they're sincere about reaching out to voters beyond their generally homogeneous base. And once in a while, we're reminded why such outreach usually doesn't go well. Consider just the last few weeks. First we saw a GOP congressional candidate who published pieces for a racist publication, which criticized inter-racial marriage, school integration, Jews, and African Americans. Then we saw another ground of ugly anti-immigrant attack ads. This coincided with news of another GOP congressional candidate who spent years dressing up like a Nazi for recreation. And yesterday, another high-profile Republican relied on old-fashioned gay bashing in the hopes of winning votes.
Amanda Terkel has the video. Paladino's prepared text reportedly included a sentence he chose not to include in spoken remarks: "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual." By way of a defense, the Paladino campaign raised three points. The first is that the candidate did not actually repeat that offensive line in his prepared remarks. Of course, it's not much of a response to argue, in effect, "We didn't use that anti-gay rhetoric; we used different anti-gay rhetoric." Second, the campaign noted that Paladino hired a gay person for his campaign staff, but once we get into "some of my best friends are [fill in the blank with minority group]" the discussion is over. And third, the Paladino campaign argued that a "majority of New Yorkers agree with" his anti-gay attitudes. I rather doubt that's true, but no matter what the polls say, bigotry need not be subjected to a popularity contest. What's more, I'd be remiss if I didn't note the irony of Paladino saying, "I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family." In Paladino's case, that should probably be rephrased to say "better off and much more successful getting married, committing adultery, and raising children from both my wife and my mistress." The anti-gay ugliness is offensive enough, but where does this guy get off pretending to have the moral high ground on family values? —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
October 10, 2010
I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE GOP TO LOVE OBAMA IN 2026.... In light of the news that Democrats love to see former President Bill Clinton out on the campaign trail, while former President George W. Bush keeps a much lower profile, it's almost amusing to see Republicans decide maybe the Big Dog wasn't so bad after all.
Of course, the "rest of his presidency" included the GOP crusade to literally impeach Clinton around the time of the '98 midterms. The NYT's Jennifer Steinhauer added that much of the Republican nostalgia for Bill Clinton is "a brew of selective memory, convenient disregard for the bitter partisan battles that marked his tenure and longing for a time when major bipartisan legislation, like the North American Free Trade Agreement, was possible." Well, yes, I suppose so. But "major bipartisan legislation" would still be possible if the GOP didn't treat President Obama as some kind of Hitler/Devil combo. Regardless, it's that "selective memory" I find especially amusing. Folks under the age of, say, 30, may not remember the political environment of the Clinton era especially well, but to say that Republican attitudes were toxic would be putting it mildly. The GOP -- and its conservative allies -- didn't just oppose Clinton, they loathed him with an intensity unseen in a long while. Most of the Republican Party woke up every day in the '90s with a fairly specific thought: "What can I do to destroy the president today?" The notion in 1999 that a decade later, Republicans would like and actually praise Bill Clinton in public and on the record was so absurd, it would have been laughable. Which is why I'm kind of looking forward to 2026, when Republican decide that ol' Barack may not have been such a bad president after all. The media landscape is different from Clinton's first two years, and no one ever accused the Big Dog of being a secret Muslim from another country, but there parallels are clearly there -- the GOP insisted that Clinton was a communist criminal who hated America and was intent on destroying our way of life. The hysterics might sound familiar. We look back at the Republican rhetoric of the '90s and shake our heads in amazement. For all the hyperventilating the GOP did during the Clinton era, they were wrong; their hysterics were ridiculous; their predictions were misguided; and their wild-eyed critiques of the president, we can safely say with the benefit of hindsight, were completely at odds with reality. And if I had to bet, we'll see the same trend play out with this Democratic president. Jon Chait noted the other day, "Conservative beliefs about Clinton and Obama roughly mirror their beliefs about various liberal social reforms. At the time of its enactment, Medicare was dangerous socialized medicine that would mark the first step toward the end of freedom in America. Today it's a cherished program that Republicans vow to save from Democratic cuts. Right-wingers vilified John F. Kennedy; now they revere him. One day, Obama will play the same role in the Republican imagination that Clinton does today." If the Clinton model holds true, I'd look for the realization to kick in around 16 years from now. And many of us will snicker, thinking, "Wow, remember how apoplectic those guys were about Obama? Don't they appear foolish now?" —Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (61)
NO COMMONLY SHARED REALITY.... Ron Brownstein notes in a terrific new National Journal column just how striking it is to see a major American political party decide, all at once, to reject climate science in its entirety. (via Jay Rosen) British Foreign Secretary William Hague, a prominent conservative leader in the U.K., was in the U.S. last week, and described climate change as perhaps the 21st century's biggest foreign-policy challenge," He added, "An effective response to climate change underpins our security and prosperity."
And in case this isn't clear, unanimous Republican opposition to any meaningful efforts to combat global warming makes any kind of coordinated international effort impossible. What's more, as the climate crisis intensifies, and the need for swift action becomes even more painfully obvious, the GOP line is getting worse, not better. How many Republican U.S. Senate candidates on the ballot this year support efforts to address global warming? None. I realize that part of the problem here is that Republicans reject the science because they oppose the solutions. If they acknowledged reality, GOP officials would no doubt have a harder time explaining why they don't want to deal with a climate crisis that has the potential to wreak havoc on the planet in dramatically dangerous ways. But the result is the same. The combination of deliberate Republican ignorance and the Republican scheme to break the United States Senate makes the crisis even more serious, with little hope on the horizon. It also speaks to a larger truth -- because there's no commonly shared reality among Democratic and Republican policymakers, the prospects for compromise are effectively non-existent. Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine this morning noted, "I don't know who first described politics as the 'art of compromise,' but that maxim, to which I have always subscribed, seems woefully unfashionable today." Yeah, I wonder why that is. —Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
SUSAN COLLINS ON 'DIVISIVENESS'.... Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine has a fairly long op-ed in the Washington Post today on civility, denouncing the "bomb-throwing, scorched-earth, incendiary political rhetoric" that's come to dominate much of the discourse. I don't doubt for a moment that Collins is entirely sincere, and would gladly play a constructive role in elevating the tone of our larger political conversation. I'd even go so far as to suggest some of Collins' concerns have at least some merit. Congress has become less collegial. Norms and traditions that used to be honored in the Senate have disappeared. Far too many lawmakers really would prefer to "draw sharp distinctions and score political points, even if that means neglecting the problems our country faces." I'd argue there are larger systemic, procedural, and policy concerns of greater importance than "poisonous words," but Collins' concerns are hardly baseless, and I'm not inclined to criticize her for raising them. But reading her take on the subject is nevertheless exceedingly frustrating, because there's a gap between Collins' observations and the reality shaped by Collins' actions. Collins notes, for example, that she felt compelled to help her party kill a defense authorization bill -- which would have led to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- because Senate Democrats wouldn't let Republicans push enough extraneous amendments to run out the clock on the session. Kevin Drum has a good take on this, but to make a long story short, Dems are limiting amendments because the GOP hasn't left them much of a choice. Regardless, it's hardly an excuse for mandating 60-vote super-majorities on literally every vote of any significance. But that's really just the tip of a misguided iceberg.
Collins may not fully appreciate this, but Democrats don't have "all the power," because Senate Republicans, as a matter of course, block everything they can and Dems lack the ability to stop them. For that matter, whatever "temptation" Dems might have to "roll over the minority," it's worth emphasizing that the White House and Democratic leaders on the Hill have routinely pleaded with the GOP to strike bipartisan deals (on stimulus, health care, energy, Wall Street reform, immigration, etc.). In every instance, nearly every Republican has refused to compromise.
Actually, another Republican, Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, went even further, suggesting Collins might be a communist. A year later, Collins nevertheless announced her support for Toomey, traveled to Pennsylvania to endorse him, and even helped him raise money. And there's the point that Collins just doesn't seem to understand. Her opinion piece says she'd like to see "those who put partisanship over progress and conflict over compromise" lose elections, but there's no evidence she means it. If she did, she wouldn't support a right-wing bomb-thrower like Toomey, who named Collins the "Comrade of the Month" for her role in helping rescue the economy from a depression last year. Indeed, there's a larger context that Collins seems to deliberately ignore. Her party keeps moving further and further to a hysterical right-wing cliff, but she says and does nothing about it. Collins actually does the opposite -- supporting extremists seeking Senate seats, and insisting that her party deserves to win "both" the House and Senate, despite its hard-core conservatism. More to the point, she sees fringe candidates, Tea Party zealots, and unhinged media personalities undercutting the discourse and moving her party to the right, but instead of standing up to denounce the development, Collins applauds and enables the development. For that matter, by helping her party's unprecedented obstructionism, Collins is actually making matters worse, even as she complains about the trajectory. I'm not reflexively opposed to her concerns, but it's the context and the messenger that make Collins' criticisms hard to take too seriously. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
BYRON WILLIAMS' MOTIVATIONS.... Over the summer, Byron Williams, an anti-government zealot, loaded up his mother's truck with firearms, put on body armor, and headed to San Francisco with the intention of starting a violent rampage. He didn't reach his destination -- Williams initiated a shootout with police in Oakland after being pulled over for driving erratically -- but his goal was to "start a revolution" with bloodshed at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation. The relatively obscure Tides Foundation is a favorite target of Glenn Beck. The non-profit organization supports "sustainability, better education, solutions to the AIDS epidemic and human rights," but the deranged Fox News personality has nevertheless labeled Tides a major cog in some larger conspiracy to destroy capitalism. Was Williams inspired by Beck? Dana Milbank's column today sheds some light on the subject.
To be sure, criminals are responsible for their crimes, and in this case, Beck didn't tell Williams to launch a violent attack. But there are some relevant details here that speak to a larger truth. Williams completed a couple of jailhouse interviews, one of which will be published by Media Matters tomorrow, and Milbank notes that Williams' comments "show precisely why Beck is dangerous: because his is the one voice in the mass media that validates conspiracy theories held by the unstable." He's not calling for violence, but Beck is "giving voice and legitimacy to the violent fringe."
By any reasonable measure, Beck is whipping up a confused and easily-misled mob into a rage, lying to them with deranged theories, and pointing them in a direction. That's legal and his speech is protected by the First Amendment. But the sooner Beck, his network, his sponsors, and the media conglomerate that signs his checks show some restraint, and take some responsibility for dousing a simmering flame with lighter fluid, the safer we'll be. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
MANCHIN SEIZES ON 'HICKY' OPPORTUNITY.... Once thought to be a fairly safe contest for Democrats, the U.S. Senate race in West Virginia is quickly slipping away, with right-wing Floridian John Raese (R) taking the lead in several recent polls. West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) remains popular, but is struggling in light of attack ads connecting him to President Obama, who is deeply unpopular in the state. The Republicans' "hicky" ad offers a chance to change the momentum. The spot, financed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was aired after having been filmed in Philadelphia, with actors told to appear "hicky" in order to "look" West Virginian. In fairness, there are a couple of degrees of separation between the NRSC and the words used by the ad agency's casting call, but Dems are operating under a modified Pottery Barn rule: they bought it, so they own it. With that in mind, the Manchin campaign has unveiled this new ad, which touches all the bases. "John Raese thinks we're hicks," the ad says. "His people hired actors from Philadelphia to attack Joe Manchin, and told them to dress 'hicky.' It's insulting, and he didn't even apologize." Note, the spot ties this into related themes, including the fact that Raese's family moved to Florida ("Obviously, we're not good enough for him"). We'll see soon enough whether this helps change the trajectory of the race, but don't underestimate the cultural element here. Josh Marshall noted, "Republicans playing on the supposed elitism of national Democrats is a constant theme in Appalachia. But Manchin is a very popular Democratic governor. What's got him in a tight race is President Obama and the national mood on the right. An ad like this attempts to put the lie to that whole Republican narrative." No one likes to be mocked by outsiders. —Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
GOP PRETENDS NOT TO KNOW RICH IOTT.... Late Friday, The Atlantic's Josh Green had a rather amazing scoop about Republican congressional candidate Rich Iott, running in Ohio's 9th District. It was serious enough that yesterday, his party decided to put some distance between Iott and the GOP. If you're just joining us, Iott, a Tea Party favorite, spent several years participating in Nazi re-enactments, dressing up like a German Waffen SS as part of his "hobby." Making matters worse, Iott's little troupe said it was created in part to "salute" the "idealists" and "front-line soldiers of the Waffen-SS" and their "basic desire to be free." It also characterizes Wiking volunteers as "valiant men," overlooking the minor detail that they also rounded up Jews to be slaughtered. Apparently unable to think of a compelling defense, Republicans, by mid-day yesterday, pretended not to know the candidate they recruited for the race.
For his part, Iott issued a statement late yesterday, condemning "blatant distortions and attacks." While he didn't apologize for his recreational activities, Iott did insist, by way of a defense, that he participated in re-enactments of other wars -- the Nazi uniform, in other words, wasn't the only one he wore -- and never meant "any disrespect" when he pretended to be a German Waffen SS. The explanation doesn't seem to have had much of an effect -- the NRCC wouldn't even talk about Iott in the wake of the controversy. I heard from DCCC spokesperson Ryan Rudominer yesterday, who said, "Message to John Boehner and the House Republican leadership: the least you can do is apologize and take full responsibility for recruiting and then embracing a Nazi enthusiast running for Congress, instead of remaining silent and deceiving voters by sweeping it under the rug. The extremist and fatally flawed candidates that House Republicans have been propping up speak volumes about the reckless leadership they're offering voters." That seems like the relevant theme here. Democrats are anxious to show voters that a radicalized Republican Party is running fringe, extremist candidates. A guy like Rich Iott was probably going to lose anyway, but the revelations nevertheless make the Dems' job easier. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
October 9, 2010
THE WRONG ARGUMENT FROM THE WRONG TEAM.... The latest monthly jobs report, as has been the case for months, was disappointing. The private sector added jobs for the ninth month in a row, but growth was tepid and didn't come close to offsetting the large job losses in the public sector. Conservative Republicans, who've been wrong about every major economic challenge for the last several decades, seemed thrilled to seize on the unemployment numbers, in the hopes they'd pay political dividends. That may very well prove effective -- the employment picture is still bleak and discouraging, which to the GOP, necessarily means the Democratic approach didn't work. Let's pause to appreciate how backwards this is. Honestly, I'm not sure what it is Republicans think they're whining about. The economy is clearly still struggling, but we'd be far better off if the GOP weren't already getting its way. Putting aside everything we know about the status quo, consider exactly what Republicans think we should be doing right now: keep Bush-era tax rates; slash public-sector employment; stop infrastructure investments; let the private sector grow without any additional economic stimulus. Then consider the status quo: we have Bush-era tax rates in place (in addition to middle-class and small-business tax cuts Dems passed over GOP opposition); the public sector is shedding jobs by tens of thousands of people per month; infrastructure investments are being blocked (see here and here); and the private sector is trying to grow without any additional economic stimulus. In other words, the GOP is getting its way and it's complaining about the results. It's like we're having a debate in a bad "Twilight Zone" episode. Every measure that's come up over the last 21 months that could help create jobs has been fought, watered down, and sometimes killed by Republicans ... who in turn believe the weak job landscape, which they created in the first place, is Democrats' fault. And Americans, feeling pain and anxiety, actually seem inclined to believe them. Jon Chait had a brief item yesterday that rang true:
Right. The great irony of 2010 is that unemployment is likely to give Republicans a majority, despite the fact that Republicans made unemployment worse and then kept it that way. One of the main themes in many key campaigns this year is a simple Republican message: "We tried it the liberal way." Except, we didn't. We tried the conservative way from 2001 to 2008, and it failed so spectacularly, it'll be many years before we fully recover. We tried some of the progressive approach, and it quickly helped create jobs, reverse the economic downward spiral, generate growth, and stabilize the economy. But instead of keeping our foot on the gas, we stopped. Instead of hitting the economy with more stimulus, we struggled to even pass an extension of unemployment benefits, and failed entirely to take additional steps that help the economy most. Conservative Republicans were wrong about Reagan's tax increases, wrong again about Clinton's tax increases, wrong again about Bush's tax cuts, and wrong yet again about the Great Recession that Obama is helping end. I saw plenty of Republicans cheering the bad news yesterday, but those who think the GOP has credibility on economic issues just aren't paying attention. —Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
IF YOU THINK EDUCATION IS EXPENSIVE.... In his weekly address this morning, President Obama talked about education policy, its role in keeping Americans competitive globally, and its importance in job creation. But he also noted a political detail that hasn't gotten much attention. After talking about what his administration has done and still intends to do, Obama noted that congressional Republicans have a plan to "cut education by 20 percent -- cuts that would reduce financial aid for eight million students; cuts that would leave our great and undervalued community colleges without the resources they need to prepare our graduates for the jobs of the future." The president added that he would fight any effort to "shortchange our children's education," adding, "Instead of being shortsighted and shortchanging our kids, we should be doubling down on them." That's fine rhetoric, but is it true? Republicans haven't exactly been forthcoming with details about their policy agenda in the next Congress; do we know that they really have steep education cuts in mind? Actually, yes, we do. House Republicans have pledged to trim $100 billion from discretionary spending next year, and in practical terms, that necessarily means the GOP intends to "slash spending for education, cancer research and aid to local police and firefighters." Specifically, the Republican plan "would take about $15 billion from education. A 21 percent cut in Pell Grants would take almost $5 billion from student tuition." That money, based on the GOP plan, wouldn't necessarily go towards deficit reduction, but rather, would help finance tax cuts that primarily benefit millionaires and billionaires. It's almost certainly too late in the election cycle to introduce voters to a new topic for debate, but for those Americans who care about education funding, the Republican plan for 2011 should offer a powerful incentive to hope there isn't a GOP majority next year. —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the release of fascinating survey data from the Public Religion Research Institute, highlighting the overlap between self-proclaimed Tea Party activists and the traditional religious right movement. For all the talk that the Tea Party crowd tends to be secular, libertarian-minded folks, primarily concerned about fiscal issues, the results suggest otherwise.
PRRI CEO Dr. Robert Jones added that Tea Party activists "don't differ much from the Republican Party's religious profile." An NPR report added, after scrutinizing the results, this is "fundamentally a Republican movement." The results also showed Tea Party crowd with a membership that is "overwhelmingly white," and "feel they are losing ground to African-Americans and other minority groups." It's almost as if the Tea Party really isn't a distinct "movement," but rather just the reactionary GOP base by a different name. Also from the God Machine this week: * Dahlia Lithwick has a helpful report on the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps, the case dealing with restrictions on a radical hate church that protests at the funerals of fallen Americans soldiers. * Right-wing opponents of a community center and mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, tried this week to convince a local judge that Islam isn't a religion. Seriously. * Leaders of a prominent religious right group argued on a radio show this week in support of government "regulation" of homosexuality. They weren't kidding. * And as part of his new book, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes that deranged media personality Glenn Beck appears to be motivated, at least in part, by "the need to fulfill" Beck's interpretation of "Mormon prophecy." (thanks to reader D.J. for the tip) Update: The link to the Milbank piece has been corrected. Apologies. —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... One of the more remarkable qualities of high-profile Republican rhetoric is the capacity for delusion. A variety of prominent GOP officials have no real qualms about simply making things up out of whole cloth, and expecting their audiences to believe them. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), currently planning a presidential campaign after losing re-election by 19 points, shared a real doozy on Fox News this week. He insisted, with a straight face, that "under the Bush administration ... poverty among African Americans and among single unmarried women, poverty was at the lowest rate ever in the history of this country. So Obama's policies are not working, Bush polices worked! For long a time as a matter of fact." As Alex Seitz-Wald explained, that's not even close to being true.
Was the poverty rate among African Americans "the lowest rate ever in the history of this country" during the Bush/Cheney years? Actually, no, that's insane. By 2008, the poverty rate among African Americans had soared to 24.7%. Santorum's claim about poverty among unmarried women is equally delusional -- during the Bush years, the rate had soared from 26% to 30%. I guess it's not too surprising -- this year, made-up GOP claims have become the norm. In Illinois, Mark Kirk lied about practically every aspect of his life. In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell manufactured an educational background that doesn't exist. In Nevada, Sharron Angle has a habit of saying things out loud, and then pretending she didn't. But with Santorum, the oddity is his sincere beliefs that some of Bush's most painful failures were actually wild successes. I can't help but wonder what the weather is like in Santorum's reality.
RACE-BAITING FOR THE SAKE OF RACE-BAITING.... I'm not inclined to embed it because it's just too ugly and offensive to sully the site, but scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter's (R) new attack ad in Louisiana pushes the race-baiting envelope in ways decent people everywhere should find troubling.
Adam Serwer had an insightful piece yesterday on Vitter's race-baiting tactics, noting not just their offensive qualities, but the oddity of the message -- Louisiana doesn't border Mexico, and has "one of the lowest populations of undocumented workers in the country." In other words, Vitter is race-baiting just for the sake of race-baiting. If he can get white voters to hate Latinos enough, maybe, he assumes, folks will forget that Vitter is getting away with hiring hookers and putting a violent criminal in charge of women's issues for his Senate office. But I have another question: why bother? Nate Silver's most recent analysis shows the likelihood of Vitter winning re-election at around 99%. Pollster.com has a handy chart on its home page for the 13 most competitive U.S. Senate races, and Louisiana's contest isn't on the list. In the last three months, how many polls have shown Melancon within single digits? Zero. Vitter, by every measure, is cruising -- and he's hitting the xenophobe button with three weeks to go anyway. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
GINNI THOMAS' SECRET, WEALTHY BENEFACTORS.... We've talked before about the often bizarre right-wing activism of Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife. As she sees it, "there's a war going on against tyranny," and in her worldview, the tyrants are America's elected leaders. There's certainly room for debate about whether Ginni Thomas, as a private citizen, should be subjected to scrutiny just because of her spouse. One could also debate whether Ginni Thomas is a bit of a nut. But Jackie Calmes raises a related point today that I hadn't seen raised elsewhere.
So, the wife of a Supreme Court justice is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from secret donors -- who may or may not have a case before the high court -- she doesn't have to disclose. Does this seem kosher to anyone? Unknown entities are generously financing the work of a Supreme Court justice's spouse, and the public has no idea who's writing the checks, where the money's going, whether it might create a conflict of interest, etc. Indeed, Ginni Thomas is allowed to do all of this, in large part because of a Supreme Court ruling her husband helped decide.
If the situations were reversed -- if a liberal justice's spouse attacked Republican leaders with hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret donations -- I suspect there'd be quite a bit of discomfort on the right. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
GOP HOUSE CANDIDATE PRETENDS TO BE A NAZI.... I don't generally begrudge politicians' leisure habits. We all have hobbies and various recreational activities we enjoy, and who's to say which leisure pursuit is better than the other? That said, when a congressional candidate chooses to spend his weekends pretending to be a Nazi, just for the fun of it, there may be a problem. Josh Green had this rather remarkable scoop.
Now, I've heard about Civil War re-enactments, and I'm certainly not inclined to criticize those who "fight" for the South in these make-believe scenarios to be slavery-loving traitors. But Iott dressing up like a Nazi isn't quite comparable. Indeed, reading Green's piece, it seems Iott and his fellow Nazi re-enactors had a certain admiration for Hitler's Germany, and its fight against "Bolshevist Communism." In fairness, it's worth emphasizing that the re-enactors' website includes a disclaimer noting that they "do not embrace the philosophies and actions" of the Nazis, and "wholeheartedly condemn the atrocities which made them infamous." On the other hand, Iott's little troupe also said it exists in part to "salute" the "idealists" and "front-line soldiers of the Waffen-SS" and their "basic desire to be free." It also characterizes Wiking volunteers as "valiant men," overlooking the minor detail that they also rounded up Jews to be slaughtered. Green spoke to one historian who noted, "These guys don't know their history. They have a sanitized, romanticized view of what occurred." Another scholar said, Iott and his buddies have an understanding of World War II that is "so unhistorical and so apologetic that you don't know to what degree they've simply caught up innocent war memorabilia enthusiasts who love putting on uniforms." Iott is not, by the way, just some weirdo who managed to somehow win a GOP primary -- he's a member of the NRCC's "Young Guns" Program and a party favorite against incumbent Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D). I know Republicans are likely to have a very good year, and will likely even take back at least one chamber of Congress. But I continue to marvel at the caliber of GOP candidates who'll be on the ballot this fall. Win or lose, many of these major-party nominees are a national embarrassment. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
October 8, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * China's best known dissident becomes the first Chinese citizen to win the Peace Prize: "Liu Xiaobo, an impassioned literary critic, political essayist and democracy advocate repeatedly jailed by the Chinese government for his writings, won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in recognition of his pursuit of nonviolent political reform in the world's most populous country." * Foreclosures: "Bank of America, the country's largest bank, said on Friday that it was halting all foreclosure proceedings and sales of foreclosed homes indefinitely." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is calling on other major lenders to do the same. * Gen. James Jones departs as President Obama's national security adviser. His successor will be his deputy, Thomas Donilon. * Wall Street ended the week on a high note, not because the economy is looking up, but because it isn't: "The Dow Jones industrial average closed Friday above 11,000 for the first time since early May as the markets digested news of another weak report on unemployment, fueling expectations the Federal Reserve will step in to help the economy." * Would New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) reverse course on the proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River? Maybe. (I'm not sure why he couldn't think this through before making an announcement yesterday.) * What's been killing off honeybees over the last several years? Military scientists and entomologists close in on the culprit. * The Rachel Maddow Show has an idea for re-naming my monthly jobs chart. Works for me. * On a related note, "Where Are The Jobs?" The GOP blocked them. * Sarabeth has some worthwhile thoughts on the future of the foreclosure crisis, and why it might slowly get bigger. * Kevin Drum has a compelling defense of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) low-key, behind-the-scenes style. * Graduation rates: community colleges vs. for-profits. * And last week, extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) in Nevada made some wildly ridiculous public remarks about Sharia Law being a threat to America. Greg Sargent has the audio and a partial transcript, and if anything, the remarks seem even worse. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
DIRTY MEDICINE -- CONFIRMED.... A few months ago, the Washington Monthly published an investigative story about an issue that should be at the center of discussions about how to lower health care costs in America. The story, by Mariah Blake, looked at the murky world of "group purchasing organizations," giant enterprises that serve as middlemen for hospitals in buying their medical supplies, everything from stethoscopes to MRIs. In theory, GPOs are supposed to lower hospitals' supply costs by buying in bulk from manufacturers. The problem is that GPOs make their money from commissions and fees paid by the manufacturers -- in essence, a form of kickback that in any other industry would be illegal but isn't in this industry, thanks to an obscure loophole in Medicare law. Reformers have wanted to get rid of that loophole for years, arguing that it allows big medical device makers to collude with the GPOs to set prices and terms and keep small manufacturers, which might offer cheaper and better products, out of the market. But despite several congressional investigations, no one could prove whether or not GPOs did what they claimed, which is lower the prices hospitals pay for supplies. Blake, however, came upon a Texas-based company called MEMdata, which helps hospitals process their equipment bids, and therefore has in its database both the prices GPOs are charging hospitals and what they could get if they bargained directly with the manufacturers. MEMdata's CEO Bob Yancy showed some of this data to Blake and estimated that on average the GPOs' prices are 22 percent higher than the ones that hospitals can get on their own. "The bottom line is that hospitals are being systematically overcharged," Yancy told Blake. "GPOs are inflating the pricing." Since that story was published, two economists, Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution and Hal Singer of the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, have looked deeper into MEMdata's records. On Wednesday they published a study funded by the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, an industry trade group, that confirms what Blake found. According to the study, GPOs increase health care costs nationwide by $37.5 billion a year, and cost the federal government $11.5 billion annually -- money that could be saved simply by getting rid of the anti-kickback provision. Sounds like a good idea to me. For more on this, there were reports published by the AP, HuffPost, Harvard Business Review, DOT Med News, The Daily Caller, MarketWatch, and The Hill. —Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
IT WAS OFFENSIVE ENOUGH THE FIRST TIME.... For reasons that continue to escape me, Forbes recently published an insane cover story, written by right-wing polemicist Dinesh D'Souza, attacking President Obama as a dangerous, radical "anti-colonialist," with the mindset of an African "Luo tribesman." The obscene piece quickly drew considerable scrutiny, which it failed to withstand. Almost immediately, the Forbes piece was thoroughly discredited -- not just for sloppy errors, but for what was effectively Birtherism with a high-brow veneer. The piece ended up doing far more damage to D'Souza and the magazine than any trouble it could have hoped to cause the president. And yet, lo and behold, the Washington Post allowed D'Souza to rehash the identical argument in a 800-word op-ed today. Even Howard Kurtz, a long-time veteran of the paper, said, "Why would WP run a condensed version of Dinesh D'Souza's Forbes piece, abetting discredited argument that Obama's dad made him anticolonial?" That's' a good question. The op-ed, like the article it came from, is garbage. Worse, it's lazy garbage, espousing cheap attacks that were exposed as nonsense weeks ago. Indeed, the lede of D'Souza's op-ed makes sweeping arguments about the president's psyche based on the title of Obama's first book -- arguments that appear ridiculous if one actually gets past the title to read the book itself. Asked what on earth he was thinking, Fred Hiatt, the Washington Post's editorial page editor, said:
Let me get this straight. D'Souza's argument has already been exposed as right-wing trash. Hell, a columnist from Forbes itself blasted D'Souza's "intellectual goofiness," "factual problems," and "unsubstantiated ideological accusations." But the Washington Post is giving the writer yet another platform, on purpose and probably for compensation, because people are talking about just how ridiculous D'Souza's argument really is? Offensive, discredited ideas deserve coveted media real estate, regardless of merit, based solely on their ability to generate political buzz? Adam Serwer noted that this "basically supports the theory that attacking right-wing nonsense just makes the press embrace it even more." It's also a reminder that, a little too often, it's not altogether clear why some op-ed pages even exist. Ideally, opinion columns are intended to add context, analysis, and a larger vision to current events. But when a paper decides op-eds don't have to be true, and publishes items that are clearly false regardless of merit, there's a more systemic problem about journalistic standards to consider. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
IT'S NOT A TRICK QUESTION.... One of the key political stories of the week is ThinkProgress' report on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's use of foreign funds to finance anti-Democratic attack ads. The Chamber's response has been fully of sound and fury, but as the week (and the story) has progressed, there's one thing we haven't heard: a denial. It's a little complicated, but the story has one underlying point: the Chamber reportedly has one general account through which it finances its pro-Republican campaign effort. The business lobby's initial response was that it has a "system" in place, but that's not exactly persuasive -- (1) the Chamber hasn't elaborated on what the "system" really is; (2) the Chamber's leadership has a track record of creating "one big pot" of money, and concluding that how it's divided up is "immaterial"; and (3) if foreign funds are going into the larger pot, there's the obvious problem of money being fungible. As the story gained traction, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce went after ThinkProgress pretty aggressively, but wouldn't respond in any detail to the underlying allegation. Today, Tita Freeman, a spokesperson for the business lobby, spoke via email to Greg Sargent, but the exchange didn't exactly shed light on the subject.
So, the Chamber isn't "obligated" to answer the question, so it won't answer the question. Is that evidence of wrongdoing? Of course not. Are vague and evasive answers from an already-secretive lobbying group likely to reinforce concerns that the Chamber is doing something it shouldn't be? That's a safe bet. Put it this way -- what are the odds that the Chamber has a perfectly reasonable, legal defense for its campaign activities, that would fully exonerate the organization and make ThinkProgress look bad for even raising the allegations, but it's choosing not to share this defense because it isn't "obligated" to? —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
BASE UNIMPRESSED WITH CANTOR'S CAUTION.... For months, we've seen all kinds of Republican officeholders, candidates, and media personalities talking up the notion of shutting down the government next year, if there's a House GOP majority. Even John Boehner, the would-be Speaker, noticeably hasn't ruled it out. It came as something of a surprise, then, when House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) threw cold water on the idea earlier this week, while talking to the Wall Street Journal, no less. Asked if we're likely to see a replay of the 1995-style budget showdown that led Newt Gingrich to shut down the government, Cantor said, "No. I don't think the country needs or wants a shutdown." He added that when it comes to pursuing their agenda, Republicans "have to be careful" or they'll be "seen as a bunch of yahoos." The base noticed the remarks, and isn't at all happy about the notion of taking a shutdown off the table. Brian Beutler had this report today:
I think this is significant, not just because of potential tensions between GOP leaders and the anti-government zealots likely to give them a House majority, but because it's a reminder about the base's expectations. Americans in general almost certainly have no idea that a government shutdown is a possible result of electing a Republican House, but for the Tea Party crowd, there's an expectation of a battle royal -- and they don't take disappointment well. When it comes to a showdown, Boehner, Cantor, & Co. may reach a point at which they want to tell the base, "We really don't want to shutdown the government." It's important to remember that the activist base will reply, "We don't care what you want." —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
DEFICIT HAWKS SHOULD BE THRILLED.... The Washington Post ran an item that was easy to overlook today, back on page A12, on the budget deficit. Given all the talk from Republicans and far-right activists lately about the deficit, it's tempting to think it would garner a little more attention. According to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year was $1.29 trillion, which is, you know, a lot. But the deficit shrank from the year before; it's slightly lower than the deficit President Obama inherited from his predecessor; and the total was also "lower than either the CBO or the White House had predicted earlier this year, suggesting that the wave of red ink propelled by the recession that began in 2007 has finally peaked." Stan Collender notes the larger context.
Even if the CBO estimate turns out to be accurate -- the official tally will come from the Treasury later this month -- I don't imagine we'll see a lot of headlines blaring, "U.S. achieves biggest one-year deficit reduction in American history." Why not? Because it's the kind of news that doesn't really satisfy anyone. For those of us who want to see the government borrow more in order to invest in economic growth and job creation, news of the deficit going down isn't good news at all. Borrowing more money is exceedingly cheap right now, and the economy desperately needs a boost. The fact that the deficit is shrinking may seem like good news in the abstract, but it's arguably the opposite of what we need. And for those who consider the deficit a civilization-threatening scourge, we may be witnessing "the biggest one-year nominal drop in the deficit that has ever occurred," but it's not enough because it's still $1.29 trillion. Or as Collender put it, "In other words, the $125 billion reduction in the deficit was both too much and not enough." Jonathan Cohn added that there were plenty of center-right Dems who balked at deficit spending, even to improve the economy, because they were afraid of a backlash: "Running higher deficits, they thought, would incur the wrath of voters and make re-election difficult. Well, now they've gotten their way. The deficit is coming down. Let's see how much the voters care come November." —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
GUESS WHO'S VOTING?.... The other day, I had an idea for a short election-related video, so I jotted down a few notes. Of course, I don't know anything about turning back-of-the-napkin ideas into a finished product, so I took the concept to my friend Bill Simmon, a skilled filmmaker who knew exactly how to convert my script into a fun little clip. Here's what we came up with. Let me know what you think. Update: If you can't watch YouTube clips from your work computer, there's a Vimeo version available. —Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (93)
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. * For the second consecutive month, the Republican National Committee's monthly fundraising total fell far short of expectations. In September, the RNC pulled in $9.7 million. The goal was $13.5 million. * Speaking of fundraising, the Democratic Governors Association broke its own record in the third quarter of 2010, thanks in large part to the backlash against News Corp's support for the Republican Governors Association. * Can anyone say with any confidence exactly which state U.S. Senate candidate John Raese (R) actually lives in? It's surprisingly difficult to figure out. * In Florida's U.S. Senate race, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows Marco Rubio (R) leading Gov. Charlie Crist (I) by 15 points, 42% to 27%, with Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) third at 21%. * In Ohio, the latest Suffolk University poll shows former Rep. John Kasich (R) with a modest lead over incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 46% to 42%. The Senate race appears less competitive, with Rob Portman (R) leading Lee Fisher (D), 47% to 37%. * While a recent Quinnipiac poll showed a competitive U.S. Senate race in New York, the pollster's newest release found Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) leading Joe DioGuardi (R), 55% to 34%. The same poll shows Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) leading his GOP challenger by 31 points. * In Colorado's gubernatorial race, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper leading a three-way contest with 47% support. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, running on a third-party ticket, is second with 33%, followed by Dan Maes (R) at 13%. * Dem hopes in Indiana's U.S. Senate race appear to have faded entirely. The latest EPIC/MRA poll shows corporate lobbyist Dan Coats (R) leading Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), 51% to 33%. * And in one of the toughest DCCC ads of the year, the campaign committee reminds voters in Massachusetts' 10th about Republican candidate Jeff Perry and his role as "the supervising officer of a cop in Wareham, Scott Flanagan, who at least twice in the mid-1990s conducted illegal strip searches of female teenage suspects." —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
HARRY REID'S REPUBLICAN SUPPORT.... This may sound like an odd question, but is there another Democratic Senate incumbent, anywhere in the country, who has as much Republican support as Nevada's Harry Reid? Surprisingly enough, I don't think so.
In a statement, Raggio said he can't overlook Angle's "record of being totally ineffective as a four-term assemblywomen, her inability or unwillingness to work with others, even within her own party, and her extreme positions on issues such as Medicare, social security, education, veterans affairs and many others." But what's striking to me is how common this has become. Rusty Tybo, the Republican mayor of Wells, Nevada, endorsed Reid a month ago, as did former RNC Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf and former Reagan media advisor Sig Rogich. Around the same time, former U.S. Rep. Jim Santini (R), who ran against Reid in 1986, also endorsed the Senate Majority Leader, as did the Republican mayor of Reno, Bob Cashell. It appears that Democrats aren't the only ones frightened by the prospect of extremist candidate Sharron Angle actually winning. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
SHINING A BRIGHT LIGHT ON THE CHAMBER.... As part of its $75 million ad campaign this election cycle, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is poised to spend more than $10 million on attack ads just over the next week, effectively making it a campaign committe for a third political party. Nearly every penny the Chamber spends will, of course, be in support of Republican candidates -- so it's less of a third party and more of an appendage to one of the two. But in light of revelations this week about the Chamber raising funds from foreign companies and foreign governments, the business lobby's campaign crusade has quickly become a rallying cry for Democrats.
We haven't seen a real coordinated Democratic effort since Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) apologized to BP over the summer, and it's nice to see everyone on the same page for a change. While the president's criticism was obviously the most notable, it coincided with Democratic charges at all levels -- note David Plouffe called the spending a "big threat to our democracy" -- as well as calls for a Federal Election Commission investigation. The past couple of days have seen more Dems pounce on this than anything in quite a while. The next question, I suppose is, "To what end?" In all likelihood, the vast majority of Americans don't know a thing about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's ad campaign, so the Dems going on the offensive may seem misplaced. But I think there's something to the strategy. For one thing, it ties into other Democratic themes involving outsourcing and excessive corporate control of the GOP. For another, Dems want to put a hint of doubt in voters' minds when it comes to these attack ads. With the right blanketing the airwaves to destroy Democratic candidates, Dems are anxious to have voters ask themselves, "Who paid for that ad? What will they expect in return? And was foreign money involved?" Will voters actually show that level of sophistication/skepticism? I haven't the foggiest idea. But I suspect there's a visceral discomfort with secretive groups raising undisclosed sums from wealthy benefactors around the world, all in the hopes of buying an election cycle, and the more the public has these doubts, the better it will be for Democrats. —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.... In September, the economy added 64,000 private-sector jobs, while losing 159,000 public-sector jobs. The former number can best be described as "meh"; the latter as "awful." But the public-sector losses, unlike most of the summer, weren't driven entirely by the Census Bureau. Indeed, David Leonhardt explained that local governments cut 76,000 jobs last month -- and cut 143,000 jobs over the last three months -- many of them from public schools. All told, local governments are now "cutting jobs at the fastest rate in almost 30 years." This is an important detail to keep in mind. Republicans are likely to say today's jobs report is disappointing because private employers are worried about Bush-era tax rates, or health care reform, or whatever the new talking points say. But that's foolish -- the new jobs report would have looked a whole lot better if Congress had saved those local government jobs. It had the ability to do so, but chose not to. Ezra Klein explained this morning:
It would have been surprisingly easy for Congress to make the investments in state and local governments necessary to save these jobs. But lawmakers have come to believe (a) Republicans would block any such effort; (b) voters may punish Congress for "spending"; and (c) the electorate will reward GOP candidates for supporting the policies that prevented these jobs from being saved. We have an obvious economic problem. But the political problem is standing in the way of making things better. —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
PRIVATE-SECTOR JOB GROWTH.... In the previous post, we talked about the new monthly jobs report, with the chart we've all come to know and love. But following up on the tradition we started last month, many of you have emailed to suggest it's time for a slightly different chart -- one showing just the private sector job market. To be clear, public-sector jobs count, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. When workers lose their jobs, it's devastating for them, and it undermines economic growth for everyone -- whether the job was paid for by taxpayers or not. The problem is, the rise and fall of Census Bureau jobs can offer a skewed picture -- some months, such as May 2010, look better than they should, because the monthly total is exaggerated by hundreds of thousands of Census jobs. Other months, such as June 2010, are distorted in the other direction, looking worse than they should. Of course, those who work for the Census Bureau count, too, and those who've lost these temp jobs will obviously want to find new employment. The point is, the gain and loss of these Census jobs were predictable and set out in advance, and don't really tell us much about the larger employment landscape. In September, the economy lost 159,000 jobs from the public sector -- about half of which came from the loss of temporary Census workers. At the same time, the private sector added 64,000 jobs, which is down from the previous month, and not even close to what we'd like to see from the economy, but the total was largely in line with expectations. It was the ninth consecutive month of private-sector growth, tepid and underwhelming though it may be. All told, the economy has added 863,000 private-sector jobs in 2010*. For comparison purposes, note that the economy lost nearly 4.7 million private-sector jobs in 2009, and lost 3.8 million in 2008. With that in mind, here is a different homemade chart, showing monthly job losses/gains in the private sector since the start of the Great Recession. 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.
* Update: I originally understated the annual totals by 10,000, and the post is now corrected. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
PRIVATE-SECTOR JOB GROWTH CAN'T OFFSET PUBLIC-SECTOR LOSSES.... The monthly employment picture from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is starting to look repetitious. September's totals were published this morning, and the new report looks a lot like the last few reports -- the private sector is slowly adding jobs, but we can't get our head above water because of the loss in the public sector.
The difference between the public and private sectors continues to be significant. Like the last several months, it's the loss of public-sector jobs, mostly from the wind-down of the Census, that brings the overall total into the negative. The addition of 64,000 private-sector jobs obviously needs to get much stronger, but at least the sector isn't losing jobs. What's more, it's the ninth consecutive months of job growth in the private sector, a streak we haven't seen in a long while. As a political matter, this is the last monthly jobs report before the midterm elections, and it's very likely Republicans will characterize it as evidence that they're right. They're not. Had it not been for the Recovery Act, the job numbers would be dramatically worse, and the loss of many public-sector jobs is preventable, except Republicans have fought and blocked any efforts to prevent these losses. Once again, here's the homemade chart I run on the first Friday of every month (or in this case, the second, since last Friday was the 1st), showing monthly job losses since the start of the Great Recession. 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.
THE FIRST OF SEVERAL LIKELY ACA COURT VICTORIES.... No matter what happens in the midterm elections, opponents of the Affordable Care Act will struggle to repeal the law through legislative means. They're better off, at least marginally, taking their case to the courts, where there are currently over a dozen challenges to various provisions of the health care law, most notably the individual mandate. There were a couple of procedural rulings over the summer, but none dealt with the law on the merits. That changed yesterday, when a federal judge found the law constitutional, ruling that the mandate is legal through the Commerce Clause.
The case was brought by a conservative legal outfit called the Thomas More Law Center, which insisted the public couldn't be compelled to purchase insurance. The Justice Department responded, pointing not only to the Constitution's Commerce Clause, but also to the "congressional power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare." Judge Steeh agreed with the Obama administration on both. Jonathan Cohn added that the ruling is "pretty much a wholesale win for reform," and that "the future of health care reform just became a little more secure."
That's the good news. There are, however, plenty of rulings yet to come, and yesterday's decision will be appealed to the 6th Circuit, which is one of the nation's most conservative and might be inclined to make a "fairly radical move." Still, yesterday was a heartening win, and will likely be the first of many. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
October 7, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Still high, but better (and beating expectations): "New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week, touching their lowest level in nearly three months, according to a government report on Thursday that pointed to some stability in the troubled labor market." * A possible environmental catastrophe unfolding in Hungary: "The toxic red sludge that burst out of a Hungarian factory's reservoir reached the mighty Danube on Thursday after wreaking havoc on smaller rivers and creeks, and downstream nations rushed to test their waters." * Blue Dog Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) became the first House Dem to declare today he wouldn't support Nancy Pelosi for another term as House Speaker next year, if there's a Democratic majority. He said he wouldn't support John Boehner (R-Ohio) for Speaker, either. * It's not exactly swift-moving progress with Middle East peace talks: "The Arab League meeting on Friday in Libya, widely anticipated as a deadline when Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would either be renewed or definitively cut off, appears likely to pass without either occurring." * I know he's a Republican darling, but it's hard to imagine what he's thinking here: "Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Thursday that he has decided to terminate the construction of a commuter train tunnel between northern New Jersey and Manhattan because of escalating estimates of the project's cost." Paul Krugman called it "arguably the worst policy decision ever made by the government of New Jersey -- and that's saying a lot." * The economy's problem isn't structural: "For months, companies have been sitting on the sidelines with record piles of cash, too nervous to spend. Now they're starting to deploy some of that money - not to hire workers or build factories, but to prop up their share prices." * Nicholas Kristof explains that "the strong implication is that Republican rule would lead to the Trifecta of Torment: higher unemployment, worse deficits and greater inequity. That might be more important to ponder this fall than the ups and downs of the mud-wrestling competitions." * Daschle's remarks on the public option have caused a stir, but they don't exactly shed any new light on the subject. * Ryan Grim reports on the CFPB: "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be the first real agency of the 21st century, Elizabeth Warren said in an interview with the Huffington Post, and it will rely on interaction with the public in order to accomplish its mission." * It's only fair to note there are a couple of degrees of separation between the NRSC and the "hicky" attack ad in West Virginia. They bought it so they own it, but "hicky" wasn't part of the Republican script. * Wait, Tea Partiers have begun hating puppies, too? * Americans want better colleges. They just don't want to pay for them. * There's something pretty amusing about the idea of Lou Dobbs hiring undocumented immigrants to work at his horse farm. Apparently, Dobbs will be addressing this tonight on MSNBC's "The Last Word," which should be interesting. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
ARC OF HISTORY, STILL BENDING.... In the past couple of months, there have been a couple of polls showing a majority of Americans, for the first time, supporting marriage equality of gays and lesbians. A new survey published by the Pew Research Center doesn't show quite that much support for same-sex couples, but the results are encouraging anyway. The bad news is, a 48% plurality in the poll opposed marriage equality, while 42% support it. But as Jay Bookman noted, "[I]f you look at the trend line, you can clearly see where this is headed." From the Pew report:
Looking just at Pew data, support has never been as high as it is now, and opposition has never been as low. American attitudes on marriage equality have changed steadily for many years, and the arc is bending towards justice. What's more, whether the right is prepared to accept this or not, they're going to lose this fight. It always takes a while, but in time conservatives always lose fights over discrimination and civil rights. The Pew data makes this abundantly clear by noting the generation gap -- older Americans are the only ones who are staunch opponents, and even within this age group, support for same-sex marriage has almost doubled over the last 15 years. I don't expect the right to just throw in the towel on this, but (1) winning elections by attacking gays is going to be a lot more difficult going forward; and (2) eventual victory is a matter of "when," not "if." —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.... Several months ago, after the House had already passed the Senate version of the health care reform bill, it was time for lawmakers to consider the reconciliation package. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), less interested in serious policy work and more interested in playing childish games, decided to try to bury the reconciliation measure in a flood of ridiculous amendments. As far as Coburn was concerned, if his carefully-crafted amendments were approved, they could kill health care reform. If they were rejected, they could be used by odious candidates to deceive voters. So the right-wing Oklahoman pushed a measure, for example, to ban insurance coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs for convicted sex offenders. The Senate wisely dismissed the stunt and moved on. But it was easy to think at the time, "Just watch. Some jackass is going to run an attack ad in the fall telling voters Senator So-and-so supported giving Viagra to child molesters." Seven months later, extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) has this new attack ad going after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), which among other things, tells Nevadans:
Substantively, the ad is blisteringly stupid. It's the kind of ad that, in just 30 seconds, takes the entire American electoral process down a notch. The spot isn't true; it's not fair; and it's treating voters as if they were morons. I mean, really. Are families in Nevada seriously supposed to believe that Harry Reid deliberately chose to use tax dollars to give erectile dysfunction drugs to sex offenders? Why on earth would anyone do that? In what universe could this possibly make sense? And if it were true, wouldn't we have heard something about it before now? But politically, Republicans have come to believe this is the way one wins elections. And when it works -- Angle is leading in a few new polls, by the way -- it sends a signal to lawmakers like Coburn to keep playing childish games with the policymaking process, and to GOP candidates everywhere that sleaze like this will be rewarded by voters. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
GIVING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE REAL-WORLD MEANING.... I suspect nearly everyone's heard all about the fire that burned down Cranicks' family home in Tennessee recently*. Their town doesn't have a fire department, and they refused to pay the $75 annual fee for what was, in effect, fire insurance provided by a nearby municipality. Of course, once their home was on fire, the Cranicks quickly changed their mind, and offered to pay any amount, but it was too late -- fire crews were on the scene, but wouldn't put the fire out. Local officials didn't want to set a precedent that told the community they could wait to pay for fire services only when they really needed those services. Indeed, if enough people thought that way, there wouldn't be enough resources to have a fire department in the first place. The Cranicks were prepared to gamble, and they lost. Ezra Klein had a smart piece today, drawing a parallel to health care reform.
That's exactly right. And I'd just add that Republicans, whether they want to admit it now or not, have known this for years. It's precisely why GOP officials like George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Judd Gregg, and many others all supported the individual mandate in health care for years. It was, in fact, a Republican idea in the first place, back when there were still some GOP officials who took substantive policy details seriously. But that was before some poll showed the GOP this could be a good talking point. Regardless, in terms of explaining to people why it can't be repealed, the fiery incident in South Fulton, Tennessee, offers an extremely illustrative real-world example. * Not sure why I thought this was in Ohio. It was in Tennessee. It's corrected throughout. —Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SECOND VETO.... Shortly before adjourning, Congress quietly passed a housing measure, which some homeowners advocates warned would "make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors." The provision was pushed by far-right Rep. Bob Aderholt (R-Ala.), and it's still not altogether clear how the bill managed to be approved with so little debate. There's been some disagreement about the scope and effects of the bill, but yesterday's Reuters report alarmed consumer advocates, who said the legislation "protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents." This afternoon, the White House announced this will be only the second presidential veto since Obama took office.
Or to rephrase the White House's reaction, "Wait, the bill may do what? We're going to make foreclosures easier? Forget it." Ellen Bloom, the director of federal policy for Consumers Union, told Jake Tapper, "President Obama is doing the correct thing by vetoing this bill. With the flood of apparent improper foreclosures, this is no time to change the rules to weaken the safeguards of the notary process. This bill would make a bad situation worse when it comes to foreclosure fraud." Postscript: If you're wondering, the first Obama veto came late last year, when the president "killed a short-term resolution that turned out to be unnecessary for extending defense funding." —Steve Benen 2:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... A few months ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued, correctly, that unemployment benefits are good for the economy. As she explained it, the money is "spent quickly," which in turn "injects demand into the economy," making the benefits "job creating." The right found this ridiculous. High-profile right-wing bloggers characterized the remarks as "laughable" and "lunacy." A Fox & Friends co-host said she didn't understand the "logic" of the argument. The publisher of the conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal said anyone with "half a brain" would disagree with Pelosi. And anyone with a whole brain would agree. The evidence was clear that Pelosi was right and her detractors were wrong. Similarly, the right is hostile to food stamps, for all the same reasons. Pelosi said yesterday that food stamps offer "the biggest bang for the buck" in terms of economic stimulus, leading disgraced former House Speaker turned media darling Newt Gingrich to concede on Fox News that he's confused.
Gingrich deserves some credit, I suppose, for acknowledging his own confusion, and expressing "curiosity" about the facts. He doesn't deserve credit, though, for being so ignorant about a subject even Gingrich should be able to understand. Ben Armbruster flagged this Wall Street Journal piece from last year:
Indeed, food stamps aren't just stimulative, they're the single most effective form of stimulus in the governmental arsenal. Taken together, Gingrich's problem isn't with "liberal math," it's with reality. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
THE ORIGINAL KING OF IRONY LIVES ON.... I've long marveled at Karl Rove's borderline-pathological ability to identify some of his own ugliest, most malicious qualities, and then project them onto those Democrats he hates most. Take today, for example. Rove uses one of his many major media venues to whine that Democrats and the Obama White House are just too mean when it comes to campaigning. As his Wall Street Journal column insisted, the president and his team are guilty of adding "arsenic to the nation's political well," with "assaults" Rove predicts "will fail, even backfire." There was no evidence he was kidding. Karl Rove is accusing Dems of undermining American politics with nasty campaign attacks. The man who helped pioneer modern campaign viciousness wants Republicans to think of President Obama and congressional Democrats as big meanies. Before you just shake your head at the sheer chutzpah it takes to spew such nonsense, note this Josh Green classic from a few years ago, documenting Rove's routine reliance on "unscrupulous tactics -- some of them breathtaking -- as a matter of course," which Jon Chait flagged this morning.
There was the Republican consultant whose reputation Rove reportedly sullied in order to get more clients. There was the Alabama judicial nominee who had a background working with troubled kids, who Rove reportedly labeled a pedophile. Sure, by all means, Karl, lecture us some more from your high horse about the dangers of adding "arsenic to the nation's political well." I'd just add, by the way, that this ties into a larger pattern -- Karl Rove has made a bad habit of blasting Obama and his team for doing the exact same things Rove did. Rove ran a White House that embraced a "permanent campaign," so he's accused the Obama team of embracing a "permanent campaign." Rove embraced the politics of fear, so he's accused Obama of embracing the politics of fear. Rove relied on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted " political events, so he's accused Obama of relying on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted" political events. Rove looked at every policy issue "from a political perspective," so he's accused Obama of looking at every policy issue "from a political perspective." Rove snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan, so he's accused Obama of snubbing snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan. Rove had a habit of burying bad news by releasing it late on Friday afternoons, so he's accused Obama of burying bad news by releasing it late on Friday afternoons. Rove questioned the motives of those with whom he disagreed, so he's accused Obama of questioning the motives of those with whom he disagrees. A lesser hack may find it difficult to launch political attacks that are ironic, wrong, hypocritical, and examples of projection, all at the same time, but Rove is a rare talent. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
WHY THE HOUSE'S FRUSTRATION IS JUSTIFIED.... Back in February, The Hill reported on a striking number: there were 290 bills passed by the House just sitting in the Senate waiting for consideration. That, of course, was nearly eight months ago. A new tally shows that there are now 420 bills sitting on the Senate's shelf after having been approved by the House. There's still time for maybe a few of the 420 to get a vote in the lame-duck session, but even under the most optimistic of scenarios, Senate action would barely dent the enormous total. Alex Pareene noted that some of 420 measures are relatively insignificant, but many matter a great deal.
We'll often hear House Democratic leaders expressing frustration with Senate Democratic leaders over the fact that only one chamber seems capable of functioning as a legislative body. But it's not really the members' fault; it's the institutional rules that make it possible for Republican abuses to take place on a scale unseen in American history. Also note, there are 420 House bills awaiting Senate action, but that doesn't include legislation the House didn't bother with because it knew the Senate wouldn't do anything, and it also doesn't include the dozens of nominees and treaties that fall under the Senate's purview, but which the chamber hasn't been able to consider because of procedural abuses. The Senate doesn't work. The country desperately needs it to be fixed. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
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. * This morning, the National Republican Senatorial Committee pulled its "hicky" ad from West Virginia airwaves. Probably a good move under the circumstances. West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D), meanwhile, wants John Raese (R) and his party to apologize, but that hasn't happened yet. * Two weeks ago, a Quinnipiac poll showed a surprisingly competitive gubernatorial race in New York. That's changed quickly -- the pollster's new numbers show Andrew Cuomo (D) leading Carl Paladino (R), 55% to 37%. * Sen. Russ Feingold (D) appears to be in real trouble in Wisconsin this year, but for reasons I don't fully understand, he doesn't want the DSCC to make any investments on his behalf before the election. * Scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter (R) was supposed to attend a candidates' debate in Houma, Louisiana, on Tuesday. Vitter, who hadn't declined the invitation, decided to skip the unscripted Q&A; and go to a Republicans-only event 50 miles away. * In Nevada's U.S. Senate race, a new Time/CNN poll shows Sharron Angle (R) leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) by two, 42% to 40%. (Among registered voters, Reid has a double-digit lead, suggesting there's still an enthusiasm gap.) * In one of New York's two U.S. Senate races this year, incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand (D) leads Joseph DioGuardi (R) by 14 in a new Time/CNN poll (55% to 41%), and by 10 in a new PPP survey (50% to 40%). * On a related note, the same PPP survey shows Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) leading his GOP challenger, 59% to 37%. * In Missouri's U.S. Senate race, a new Time/CNN poll shows Roy Blunt (R) well ahead of Robin Carnahan (D), 53% to 40%, in a race Dems hoped to be a key pick-up opportunity. * In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, a new Time/CNN poll shows Richard Blumenthal (D) still up by double digits over Linda McMahon (R), 54% to 41%. The same poll shows Dan Malloy (D) leading Tom Foley (R) in Connecticut's gubernatorial race, 50% to 42%. * And in Hawaii's gubernatorial race, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) leading Duke Aiona (R) but only by two points, 49% to 47%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
WHEN CRAZY BECOMES ROUTINE.... I'm not sure what's more troubling -- the story itself or the fact that rhetoric like this has become routine enough that it barely registers anymore.
Pearce, a former congressman running for his old seat after a failed Senate bid in '08, said Birther conspiracy theories are the president's fault, because, "Barack Obama raised the most significant questions himself." To bolster the point, Pearce said Obama "traveled to Pakistan" when he was 20 years old, at a time when "it was not legal to go there with a U.S. passport." Pearce added that it's his "understanding" that the U.S. Supreme Court "is actually looking" into questions surrounding the president's eligibility. In response to additional questioning from the voter, he said he didn't consider this "our consummate fight," but assured her that he's prepared to be "in the fight" over Obama's citizenship. As a substantive matter, Pearce has no idea what he's talking about. His assertions about Americans traveling to Pakistan were debunked months ago when right-wing activists started pushing this nonsense in chain emails. For that matter, the Supreme Court has never expressed any interest in "looking" into such ridiculous questions. Either Pearce was blatantly lying to these voters, or he's just painfully clueless. In the bigger picture, GOP congressional candidates who go around spewing garbage like this is par for the course. But therein lies the point -- Pearce should be humiliated after a display like this. His remarks should leave him discredited and embarrassed, and ideally, voters would think of him as "that guy who said crazy birther things at a town-hall meeting." But in 2010, nonsense is the norm, and Republican congressional candidates seem to face no meaningful consequences for incidents like these. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
THE EFFECTS OF PLANNED TEA PARTY 'AMBUSHES' IN 2012.... I tend to avoid news speculating about the 2012 cycle, because it's just too far away to have any real meaning. But the Wall Street Journal has an important article this morning about the elections two years from now, which I suspect will have a significant impact on policymaking between now and then.
There's simply no way to say with any confidence whether any of these incumbents have anything to worry about. We don't know whether Tea Party nonsense will fizzle over the next two years; whether their potential challengers will been seen as credible; what the state of the economy will be; etc. But after GOP primaries this year in Alaska, Utah, Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Kentucky, and elsewhere, it's safe to assume incumbent Republicans of the sort-of-reasonable variety will have noticed the threat posed by hysterical zealots. And in the short term, the mere possibility of these primary challenges will, I suspect, have a significant effect on how Congress operates, regardless of how many seats Republicans win in the midterms. During this year's primary season, much of the talk focused on "anti-incumbent" attitudes, but that was an imprecise analysis. What we actually saw, over and over again in GOP primaries, was the willingness of the Republican base -- everywhere -- to punish those open to compromise and constructive policymaking. Jonathan Bernstein had a very good piece on this in August: "[T]hese primaries are sending a very strong message to GOP pols about the dangers of ever allowing any space to develop between themselves and movement conservatives." Bob Bennett lost in Utah, in large part because his willingness to work with a Democrat on health care policy was deemed unacceptable to the party's base. Bob Inglis was trounced in South Carolina because he expressed a willingness to work with people he disagreed with. Florida's Charlie Crist and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter were driven out of the party altogether because they considered it part of their responsibilities to play a constructive role in policymaking. We saw Mike Castle, Lisa Murkowski, and others face similar problems. It reached the point in August at which Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cruised to an easy primary win after assuring Republicans he would not cooperate with anyone who doesn't agree entirely with everything he already believes. There can be little doubt about Tea Partiers talking about this now, more than two years before the 2012 elections: they need to instill fear before any further lawmaking. It's important, in other words, for Corker, Snowe, Hatch, and Lugar to know that if they play a constructive role in the Senate, working on public policy and considering compromise measures -- in other words, if they do their jobs -- their base will be watching, and that base is inclined to destroy their careers unless they vote like robotic conservative obstructionists. Republican voters have sent a message to Republican lawmakers open to constructive lawmaking: don't do it. Party activists don't want responsible leaders who'll try to solve problems; they want hard-right ideologues. No exceptions. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
HOW DONOHUE AND THE CHAMBER OPERATES.... This week, ThinkProgress unveiled an important item, documenting the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is investing $75 million in attack ads against Democrats in the midterms, may be using foreign funds to influence the outcome of American elections. Tuesday, the Chamber offered a vague, half-hearted defense, which only reinforced concerns that the secretive, conservative lobbying group was doing something it shouldn't be. Yesterday, as the significance of the revelations grew, the business lobby went after ThinkProgress with a vengeance. The Chamber's pushback may have been aggressive, but it did not address the underlying concerns. Faiz Shakir explained late yesterday:
Just to flesh this out a little further, let's also note that the Chamber's president and CEO, Tom Donohue, has a certain m.o. when it comes to creating walls between accounts -- or in his case, not creating walls.
Donohue -- and his accounting practices -- are now at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is raising money hand over fist, from countries and governments from around the world, to elect candidates who'll disregard the needs of American consumers and workers. The Chamber claims to have a "system" to stay within the law, but Donohue also has a track record of creating "one big pot" -- and concluding that how it's divided up is "immaterial." —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
MISTAKES WILL HAPPEN.... Modern political campaigns, especially at the federal and statewide levels, have grown extremely sophisticated. With micro-targeting techniques and detailed voter vaults, the process through which candidates and parties reach voters has never been nearly as advanced as it is now. But mistakes will happen.
The RNC is now financing a robocall from a former Nevada governor, apologizing for the error and explaining to voters what to do with the mistaken absentee ballot forms. This news comes the same day as a separate embarrassing campaign error in Colorado.
And both of these stories come the same day as the revelation that Nevada's Sharron Angle (R) and Louisiana's David Vitter (R) used the identical stock anti-immigrant footage to try to scare white voters. Campaigns are getting more sophisticated, but they're not yet idiot-proof. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
REPUBLICANS STILL JUST DON'T LIKE THE UNEMPLOYED.... That Republican officials seem to actively dislike unemployed Americans isn't exactly new. We're talking about a party that's waged war against jobless benefits and tried to kill jobs bills during a recession -- which should tell the public quite a bit about the GOP's priorities. But it's striking to me just how far some Republicans will take this almost-personal animosity towards those who've lost their jobs.
If this sounds familiar, note that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) pushed a similar measure at the federal level in June, which would have required anyone applying for jobless benefits to pass a drug test. Even Senate Republicans found the idea distasteful, and Hatch's measure went nowhere. But four months later, Nikki Haley's gubernatorial campaign is nevertheless running with it. The idea is so absurd, it's hard to know where to start. Is it legal to force the unemployed to take a government-mandated drug test in order to qualify for benefits to which they're entitled? Who would pay for the administering of these hundreds of thousands of drug tests in South Carolina? Is this Haley's idea of "limited government"? But perhaps most important is the offensive underlying assumptions. At its core, Haley, Hatch, and those who agree with this are making a truly ridiculous assumption: those who've lost their jobs during tough economic times should necessarily be suspected of drug abuse. It doesn't matter if getting laid off wasn't your fault; it doesn't matter if there are no job openings in your area; it doesn't matter if you've never taken drugs a day in your life. If you can't find work, it may very well be your fault -- because you might be some kind of addict. What do Haley, Hatch, and their cohorts base this suspicions on? Nothing but a twisted worldview. If every American who's had to rely on jobless benefits since the start of the recession was poised to vote in November, the GOP would be in a bit of panic right now. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
THE GOP'S 'HICKY' AD.... In West Virginia's U.S. Senate race, where polls show right-wing businessman John Raese with growing support, Democrats have tried to highlight the fact that the Republican nominee isn't what he might appear to be. Raese, for example, claims to side with working people, but he opposes the minimum wage and mine-safety laws. He claims to be a West Virginian, but his home is in Florida. The Democratic case was made slightly easier with evidence that a Republican ad in support of Raese is a sham, too.
For Dems hoping to make the case that the GOP message, like its candidate, is a big deception, this certainly can't hurt. For that matter, one wonders how West Virginians will respond to being called "hicky" looking. On a related note, Salon's Joan Walsh noted that John Kasich's (R) latest ad in Ohio's gubernatorial race features a "steelworker" trashing incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D). As it turns out, Kasich's campaign couldn't find a real Ohio steelworker, so the former Lehman Brothers executive hired an actor to pretend to be an Ohio steelworker. "When we saw Congressman Kasich's ad, we wondered why any Ohio steelworker, whose job has been threatened by the unfair trade deals Kasich supported in Congress, would be willing to appear in his commercials," said USW Local 1238's John Saunders. "As it turns out, when Congressman Kasich couldn't get a real steelworker to do his dirty work, he did what any congressman from Wall Street would do -- he paid someone." To be sure, hiring actors for campaign ads isn't exactly new or shocking. But under the circumstances, and the ways in which these revelations cut against the Republican message, it's the kind of story that might get some attention in the closing weeks of the campaign. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
October 6, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Pakistan received an apology from the U.S. ambassador and condolences from Gen. Petraeus: "An investigation into a NATO airstrike that killed two Pakistani soldiers last week, triggering retaliatory torchings of coalition supply trucks and the closure of a key border crossing, has concluded that the incident was the result of poor cross-border coordination." * In related news: "Dozens of tankers carrying fuel to Afghanistan for NATO troops were torched near Quetta in western Pakistan on Wednesday, the third major attack on supplies since Pakistan closed one border crossing to Afghanistan a week ago and the first at the only checkpoint that remained open." * Afghanistan: "Taliban representatives and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai have begun secret, high-level talks over a negotiated end to the war, according to Afghan and Arab sources." * I have a strong hunch election-year politics might have had something to do with this: "The state of West Virginia sued two federal agencies on Wednesday, seeking to reverse the stricter controls on mountaintop coal mining adopted in 2009 by the Obama administration." * ThinkProgress highlighted the problem yesterday of foreign fundraising from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is investing $75 million in attack ads against Democrats this election season. Yesterday, the Chamber offered a vague defense. Today, the business lobby went after ThinkProgress with a vengeance. * Rick Sanchez spoke publicly today for the first time since last week's radio tirade, and he apologized for what he called "inartful," "tired and mangled" words that he said "were never intended to suggest any sort of narrow-mindedness and should never have been made." * For all the grief I gave Thomas Friedman over his last column, he delivers in a big way today with a terrific column on Prop 23 in California. * R.I.P., former Rep. Karen McCarthy. * Daniel Luzer: "Community Colleges: Their Finest Hour?" * And finally, Fox News' "Fox & Friends" told viewers this morning that the city of Los Angeles was ordering 10,000 jetpacks at a cost of $100,000 each. That, of course, wasn't even close to being true. "We certainly haven't bought any jetpacks," police chief Charlie Beck told the L.A. Times. "We haven't bought [squad] cars for two years." So, where'd did Fox News hear about this? The story apparently originated with the Weekly World News, a supermarket tabloid. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
DEFINING 'MORALITY'.... At a church rally late last week, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) shared his usual culture-war palaver, emphasizing his opposition to marriage equality and reproductive rights. But he also went a little further, adding that gay people and unmarried women who sleep with their boyfriends "shouldn't be teaching in the classroom." DeMint went on to say that few seem willing to defend him when he makes these bizarre declarations, "but everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion." The notion that DeMint believes Americans' rights would be violated by gays and unmarried women teaching in classrooms is truly mind-numbing, but the NYT's Nicholas Kristof takes the next step today, offering the right-wing senator a reminder about the nature of morality.
Amen to that. For much of the right, nearly all of the Republican Party, issues of morality come down to whether one is outraged by the existence of the LGBT community, and whether one wants sweeping laws interfering with women's reproductive rights. In the case of DeMint and some like-minded extremists, this might even include barring unmarried women from classrooms, but like the conservative staples, this ties into the larger disgust for human sexuality and feminism. But it's long past time for conservatives to realize that morality deserves a far broader definition. —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
PAUL RYAN INTENDS TO INDOCTRINATE FRESHMEN.... If Republicans have a net gain of 39 House seats in the midterms, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will be the next chairman of the House Budget Committee. And while he hopes to advance to the job by downplaying his radical budget proposal, Ryan is already working on plans to indoctrinate next year's freshman class.
In the same National Review interview, the conservative Wisconsinite/Ayn Rand acolyte added that "dozens" of GOP candidates have quietly let him know that they support his budget blueprint. I know it's far too late to launch a massive campaign around educating voters about the Ryan plan, but I still find this pretty important. If you're just joining us, Ryan's "roadmap" is a right-wing fantasy, slashing taxes on the rich while raising taxes for everyone else. The plan calls for privatizing Social Security and gutting Medicare, and fails miserably in its intended goal -- cutting the deficit. As Paul Krugman recently explained, the Ryan plan "is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future." At this point, 13 House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors of the radical scheme. As Ryan sees it, that number could conceivably quadruple if GOP midterm gains are large enough, and his right-wing "reinforcements" arrive. Anyone assuming a Republican-led House next year would be as unpleasant as it was between 1995 and 2006 doesn't fully appreciate how much the party has moved to the far-right since. I am curious, though, about those "dozens" who've told Paul they support his "roadmap," but haven't let voters know about their intentions. What are they afraid of? Here's a simple message for those folks: the more the party proudly proclaims its support for the radical budget plan, the more of a mandate the party can claim next year. What do you say? —Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
KEYSTONE KRAZY.... Following up on that last item, it's easy to overlook the effect the shifting Republican "mainstream" has when it comes to labeling partisan "extremists." The same GOP officials and candidates who appeared ridiculous, say, 20 years ago, are now very much in the middle of their party. It's not because they mellowed, it's because they stayed the same while their party kept going to the right. Josh Marshall noted this in passing overnight, but I think it's important: "The best thing ever to happen to Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio (especially Toomey) is the crop of completely whacky Tea Party nominees in maybe a half dozen Senate races across the country. Back under the old normal, Pat Toomey was a pretty out there guy. Club for Growth politics, a staunch advocate of phasing out Social Security. He seemed close to unelectable in Pennsylvania. But up against Angle, Miller, O'Donnell, he's like Bob Dole." Agreed. Reader D.K. recently sent me an item from Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Karen Heller, who came across Pat Toomey's book, "The Road to Prosperity: How to Grow Our Economy and Revive the American Dream," which was just published a couple of years ago. Heller learned quite a bit about the ideology of the frontrunner in Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race.
It goes on from there, with Heller noting Toomey's belief that everything will be fine if we just implement a flat tax, and deregulate the credit and mortgage industries. She concludes that Toomey "appears tame" because he avoids the "moral superiority and angry theatrics of other staunch conservatives," but tells readers, "Don't be fooled. Reading Road to Prosperity ... there's nothing moderate about him." And really, relying on Toomey's book is just scratching the surface, and doesn't even get to his controversial Wall Street past, or the fact that he compares moderate Republicans to communists. One recent statistical analysis of Toomey's voting record found that, if elected, he'd be much more conservative than Pennsylvanian Rick Santorum, and his votes make him "more conservative than 97.9% of all United States legislators since 1995." In a more traditional year, Toomey's extremism would be the center of considerable attention, and the political world would marvel at the notion of a state that backed Obama over McCain by double digits would, two years later, elect a hyper-conservative U.S. senator who blames FDR for the Great Depression. But given the madness of 2010, Toomey seems almost normal, at least for the 21st-century Republican Party, compared to the likes of Angle, Paul, O'Donnell, Buck, and Miller. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
THE RELATIVE RATINGS OF 'FAITHFUL CONSERVATIVES'.... Harold Meyerson explained in a column last year that bipartisan policymaking has been rendered largely impossible by the Republican Party's shift to the hard right. Citing research from Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Meyerson noted that a House Republican in 2003 had a voting record 73% more conservative than the median GOP member of the early '70s. And the party has moved quite a bit further since 2003. As a result, the Republican "mainstream" is nowhere near its previous points on the ideological spectrum. Dana Milbank noted in a recent column, for example, that Republican Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had been purged in GOP primaries, and used the phrase "faithful conservative" to describe the latter. This led a reader on the right to complain. Murkowski, the reader said, is actually "the most liberal ... Republican Senator west of Maine," which Milbank would see if he went through American Conservative Union ratings. So, Milbank did just that, evaluating ACU scores for Republican lawmakers over the last four decades. He found that using "the purity standards" conservatives applied to oust Murkowski and Bennett would also have led to the purge of "many, if not most, of the leading Republican lawmakers of the past 40 years." Murkowski's a lifetime ACU rating is 70.2%. Bennett's is 83.6%. If these two had to go, so too would three former Senate Majority Leaders (Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and Hugh Scott) and three former Senate Whips (Alan Simpson, Ted Stevens, and Robert Griffin).
I suspect many conservative activists reading Milbank's column thought, "Yep, they're all just too liberal, and deserve to be purged." But that only reinforces the larger point that's been evident for a while: the party keeps moving further and further to the far right, and the hysterical party base just keeps demanding even more ideological purity. And the more voters reward the party despite its ideological extremism, the less of an incentive the GOP will have to move back towards the middle. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
DON'T FOLKS USUALLY LIKE 'UNDERDOGS'?.... Over the summer, as Supreme Court confirmation hearings got underway for Elena Kagan, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) launched a lengthy broadside against former Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan's hero. "[W]hen [Kagan] was working in the Clinton administration," Kyl complained, "she encouraged a colleague working on a speech about Justice Marshall to emphasize his unshakable determination to protect the underdog." This was intended as criticism. The idea of Marshall protecting the underdog was a concept Kyl found so troubling, it became part of his initial criticism of Kagan's record. Three months later, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked why Jewish voters tend to vote Democratic.
In a general sense, Cantor's assessment of Jewish voters' motivations may very well be true. But I'm curious -- why are Republicans not prone to want to help the underdog? Between Cantor and Kyl, should the public begin to think that a vote for Democrats is a vote for underdogs? —Steve Benen 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
A FEW TOO MANY FEUDS.... For a while, I thought it might be fun to try to keep track of just how many feuds were launched by former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R). They proved hard to keep up with. Palin has feuded with David Letterman and Ashley Judd. She's feuded with her teenage daughter's ex-fiance and Rahm Emanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger. She's feuded with the National Organization for Women, "Family Guy," and climate scientists. When beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean drew criticism, Palin jumped into that feud, too. Just last week, Palin initiated a new feud, this time with President Obama's new chief of staff, Pete Rouse. (Apparently, she thinks he stole her idea of running a campaign based on a "change" theme.) But there's a new Palin feud, and this one's a little more interesting than the others. Palin's husband Todd sent an email recently to extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) and Palin PAC treasurer Tim Crawford, complaining bitterly about a recent Miller appearance on Fox News. Chris Wallace asked Miller on September 19, "Do you think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and would you like to see her run?" He refused to answer. Within hours of the interview, Todd Palin had dashed off an email. Here it is in its entirety (all spelling and grammatical errors in the original):
Miller forwarded this to some contacts. "This is what we're dealing with," he wrote. "Holy cow." First, these feuds really are getting ridiculous. Second, I suppose we can continue to assume that Palin is planning a national campaign. And third, it takes the former half-term governor "all morning" to write a Facebook item? —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
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. * As if she weren't offensive enough, extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle's (R) new attack ad has not-so-subtle racial undertones. It's hard to watch without thinking of Jesse Helms. * In case there were any doubts, Dems really are worried about Connecticut. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has added an additional $1.2 million in advertising in the state for the final three weeks of the cycle, hoping to help state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) hang on against scandal-plagued wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R). * Delaware's U.S. Senate race appears to be getting less competitive as it progresses. A new University of Delaware poll shows Chris Coons (D) leading Christine O'Donnell (R), 61% to 37%. * In California's key statewide races, the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) up by four in the U.S. Senate race, and state A.G. Jerry Brown (D) leading by seven in the gubernatorial race. * In New York's gubernatorial race, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Andrew Cuomo (D) leading Carl Paladino (R) by 15, 53% to 38%. * In Pennsylvania's key statewide races, the latest Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading the U.S. Senate race by seven points, and state A.G. Tom Corbett (R) leading the gubernatorial race by 11 points * Ohio's U.S. Senate race was once considered one of the more competitive open-seat contests, but not anymore. A new Quinnipiac poll shows former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R) leading Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D), 55% to 36%, among likely voters. * The U.S. House race in New York's 23rd got a little less complicated this week with Tea Party favorite Doug Hoffman's withdrawal, setting up a one-to-one contest between Rep. Bill Owens (D) and GOP challenger Matt Doheny in a traditionally "red" district. * In New Mexico's gubernatorial race, the latest Albuquerque Journal poll shows Susana Martinez (R) continuing to lead Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (D), 47% to 41%. * And in one of only a handful of Democratic U.S. House pick-up opportunities, the latest survey from PPP in Hawaii's 1st district shows Colleen Hanabusa (D) with the narrowest of leads over Rep. Charles Djou (R), 48% to 47%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
MEET THE TARPSTERS.... In 2008, House and Senate majorities approved of TARP rescue of the financial industry, with the support of the Republican leadership in both chambers. Two years later, after the industry had been stabilized, Congress approved a sweeping Wall Street reform package, which is at least intended to establish some safeguards to prevent an '08-style crisis from happening again. Those two pieces of legislation aren't usually tied together, but perhaps they should be. Zach Carter noted last week there are 90 sitting members of Congress who voted to rescue Wall Street, but two years later, "failed to support financial reform reining in the banks that drove our economy off a cliff." This week, David Dayen labels these 90 "The TARPsters."
In the Senate, no Democrats qualify for the TARPster label. Only one Democrat voted against Wall Street reform -- Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, who said he wanted it to go further -- but he also voted against the bailout. Among Senate Republicans, however, 21 members fall into the category, and as David noted, relying on data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, these GOP senators have collectively taken in nearly $32 million in campaign contributions from the financial industry just this year. In the House, nine Democrats get the TARPster label, and they've accepted over $1 million in donations from the industry. Among House Republicans, 60 voted for the bailout but against Wall Street reform, and they've taken in nearly $16 million in campaign contributions from the financial industry just this year. The debate over the utility, merit, and structure of the TARP program is certainly a fair one, but it's also fair to think those inclined to rescue the industry probably should have been more willing to bring some safeguards and accountability to Wall Street. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
ROMNEY URGED TO ABANDON HIS SIGNATURE ACCOMPLISHMENT.... Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has a small problem for which there is no easy answer. He served one term -- had he sought another, Romney would have very likely lost -- during which he had one signature accomplishment: passing statewide health care reform. At the time, the success cast Romney in a positive light, demonstrating his ability to tackle major policy challenges and work with members of both parties to pass a sensible, mainstream legislative milestone. That, at least in theory, is the sort of thing a governor could parlay into a national campaign. That task was made far more difficult, however, by Democrats passing the Affordable Care Act -- which looks an awful lot like Romney's health care reform package in Massachusetts. The more Republican activists and donors hate President Obama's breakthrough, and notice that the Democratic policy is eerily similar to Romney's policy, the more they'll likely end up rejecting Romney's next presidential campaign and the one major thing he got done during his only experience in government at any level. What to do? The right has some advice.
At a certain level, this is all terribly silly. Obama's policy, like Romney's policy, is a moderate solution to a long-standing national problem. Their plans are the sort of thing that can enjoy bipartisan support -- and would had the GOP not gotten so hysterical and extreme in recent years. But that is, of course, the point. Romney did one big thing during one term, and now his own party doesn't want to hear about it. On the contrary, they're demanding an apology before they hear anything else. The irony for Romney is that he's flip-flopped on practically every issue I can think of, but the one position he's inclined to stick to is the one the GOP base finds wholly unacceptable. It's worth noting, though, that it's not just Romney. Jon Chait added, "I'd also be curious to hear from some conservatives about how they see this. In 2008, nearly all of them were fine with Romney's health care plan. (National Review endorsed Romney for president.) Now, to a man, nearly all of them believe the imposition of a regulate/subsidize/mandate scheme represents one of the worst catastrophes in American history. How do they account for their dramatic change of mind? Were conservatives all simply wrong and ignorant in 2008, and now they've opened their eyes?" Maybe we should expect a whole lot of apologies from conservatives who had no problem with Obama's health care policy until it was Obama's health care policy. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
MICHAEL STEELE'S IDEA OF A 'JOKE'.... Remember RNC Chairman Michael Steele? As the midterm elections draw closer, he's kept a fairly low profile, traveling by bus around the country to small events where key candidates avoid him. He was, however, gracious enough to chat with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell last night, where the host asked a straightforward question: "What is the minimum wage?" (I think he was looking for a specific figure, not an explanation of the policy.) Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Steele obviously didn't know -- though he started to suggest otherwise -- so he did his best to say the answer was irrelevant. "The reality of it is, that is not the most paramount issue that voters out there are facing," the RNC chief argued. Of course, it's not hard to argue that wages are a critical issue, and that some Americans who have jobs are still just barely getting by. For those working hard and playing by the rules, but who are struggling badly anyway, I think the size of their paycheck probably ranks pretty high on the list of "paramount issues." And the significance of this issue becomes even more acute when we realize that several U.S. Senate candidates this year -- all Republicans -- have said publicly that they'd consider lowering the minimum wage, or perhaps even eliminating it altogether. But in trying to obscure the fact that he doesn't know the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, Steele said something else that stood out for me: "Close to 3 million jobs have been lost and this canard that, you know, we've 'saved or created,' you know, x number of jobs is a joke." Actually, Steele may think millions of Americans who have jobs right now thanks to government intervention is a "joke," but I suspect those workers and their families would disagree. In reality, by the end of 2010, there will be 3.5 million Americans with jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist were it not for the Recovery Act. That's not a "canard," and it's not a "joke," it's a fact. And had the stimulus been bigger -- in other words, had we moved even further away from the Republican line -- it would have been even more successful. Steele probably ought to take all of this far more seriously. Given that the Republican National Committee will probably give him the boot early next year, the state of the minimum wage may take on a personal resonance for the beleaguered party chairman fairly soon. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)
JOE MILLER'S DISCOMFORT WITH THE 'EXTREMIST' LABEL.... While some of this year's more ridiculous right-wing candidates hope to win in November by hiding, extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) of Alaska isn't afraid to talk to voters in public. It's what he says in public that's bizarre.
Now, that's not an exact quote, and it's possible the reporter paraphrased the candidate incorrectly, but if Miller opposes cabinet agencies that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, there wouldn't be a cabinet.
In other words, Miller hopes Alaskans vote for him, but he'd prefer a system in which Alaskans wouldn't be able to vote on their own senators at all. He also wants a small, limited government -- which just happens to prevent voters from electing congressional representatives who've served for an arbitrary number of years. The public might want to re-elect some officials more than a few times, but Miller would like the government to pass a law that takes power out of voters' hands.
Wow, that government sure is powerful. It can force Miller to accept checks, sign them, and deposit taxpayer money into his bank account. That's pretty impressive. Miller also reportedly expressed frustration about being labeled an "extremist." That's understandable. After all, he's just a right-wing lawyer who considers the minimum wage and unemployment benefits unconstitutional, thinks Social Security and Medicare should be privatized, rejects climate science, and wants to force a government shutdown next year. Why would anyone consider this "extreme"? —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
THE GOP CAN COME UP SHORT, BUT STILL GET A MAJORITY.... It's still hard to say with confidence how many seats House Republicans will pick up in the midterms. The GOP will need a net gain of 39 to win a majority for the next Congress, and while I still think the smart money says they'll clear that hurdle, a lot can still happen in 27 days. But let's say Republicans come up short and win, say, 35 seats. Under normal circumstances, that would be a pretty good cycle for a discredited party that most the country neither likes nor trusts, but given GOP expectations about massive gains this year, failing to win a House majority would be a pretty devastating setback. As it turns out, though, even if Republicans fell short of a +39 cycle, they wouldn't necessarily wait until 2012 before trying to get that majority. Indeed, if the GOP came up a few seats shy of 218, they'd just try to flip some Blue Dogs.
I have no idea whether any of these conservative Dems would be amenable to this sort of outreach, though it's worth keeping in mind that the context wouldn't exactly play in the GOP's favor. After the dust settles on the midterm cycle, if the expected Republican "wave" fails to materialize, those Blue Dogs -- all of whom would just have won re-election as Democrats in center-right districts in an ostensible GOP year -- wouldn't exactly feel excessive pressure to betray their team and join up with a party that couldn't deliver when the wind was at their backs. Still, Dems seem to be well aware of the situation, and have begun taking steps to prevent party switches.
Also note, GOP leaders who reach out to conservative Democrats would no doubt say, "You'll enjoy the party's full backing in 2012." But that shouldn't resonate -- when Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) switched to the Republican caucus, the party couldn't prevent his primary defeat. Indeed, party backing seemed largely irrelevant in this year's primaries, with plenty of establishment picks losing to challengers with Tea Party backing. One assumes Blue Dogs noticed, and would expect a similar fate if they crossed the aisle. Still, it's something to keep an eye on. Depending on the margin, the fight for the majority won't necessarily end the first week in November. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
WHEN THE SYSTEM WORKS AS IT SHOULD.... Five months ago, Faisal Shahzad tried and failed to set off a car bomb in Times Square. He was quickly identified and apprehended, initiating a process in which the Obama administration played by the rules. Once Shahzad was taken into custody, the Justice Department invoked a public safety exception to delay making him aware of his rights. The suspect was then interrogated by the FBI's High Value Interrogation Group, producing useful intelligence. At that point, Shahzad was Mirandized -- and continued to share useful information. Yesterday, the process reached its conclusion when a federal district court in Manhattan sentenced Shahzad to life in prison. During the proceedings, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum took some time to chastise the defendant, and left him with a parting shot: "I do hope that you will spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people." With all of this in mind, I can't help but wonder, isn't this about the time that far-right activists throw a fit? Shouldn't Rudy Giuliani and Liz Cheney be all over the airwaves, expressing their outrage? Conservatives don't always apply their principles consistently, but it seemed likely to me that we were in for another terrorism-related freak-out this morning. After all, the Obama administration arrested a terrorist, detained him on American soil, tried him in an American civilian court, and will lock him up until he dies in an American prison. This is, of course, precisely the scenario Republicans, who want terrorist suspects tried in military courts, inexplicably find offensive. But given the success, the White House has reason to be pleased.
There were some complaints from the likes of Cheney and Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) -- both said U.S. officials were "lucky" -- but when the process works as it should, it's easier to ignore their lack of confidence in the American justice system. As for what's next, Shahzad will join several hundred other terrorists who are permanently detained in American prisons. Since terrorists don't have superpowers, there's no sensible reason for concern. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
October 5, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Shahzad sentenced to life behind bars: "Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty to trying to blow up a sport utility vehicle carrying a homemade bomb in May in Times Square, thick with Saturday visitors, was sentenced on Tuesday morning to spend the rest of his life in prison." * Have Karl Rove's shady campaign operations run afoul of federal tax law? Maybe: "Two campaign finance watchdogs have asked the IRS to investigate a conservative group backed by Karl Rove. Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center argue Crossroads GPS, a conservative group spending heavily in this year's campaign races, is violating tax laws meant to limit political activity by non-profit groups." * Mining safety matters: "Federal regulators have increased their inspections at 89 coal mines with poor safety records, including Loveridge. They have also upped their use of orders to shut down mines until safety problems are fixed. But despite their efforts, five men were killed by heavy machinery; four were killed by falling rock. They died in mines where safety citations had increased about 31 percent after the Upper Big Branch blast." * Good idea: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Zoe Lofgren and other California Democrats are calling for a federal investigation into irregularities in processing foreclosures of thousands of homes by some of the nation's largest mortgage lenders." * Rachel Maddow stopped by Christine O'Donnell's (R) campaign headquarters today. It didn't go well. * Another sign of the media times: "Howard Kurtz, a three-decade veteran of The Washington Post who came to embody insider Washington media reporting with his weekly column and CNN television show, is leaving The Post for Tina Brown's news and commentary Web site, The Daily Beast." * I know the right finds this inconvenient, but energy independence really is a national security issue. * MSNBC to undergo some rebranding, including a new tagline: "Lean Forward." * Brilliant piece from Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick: "How to explain the [conservative Supreme Court] justices shoving the law rightward, while everyone thinks it is dead center or too far left? The answer is that [Chief Justice] Roberts is a brilliant magician. He and his four fellow conservative justices have worked some classic illusionist tricks to distract us from seeing the truth. Roberts is likely the first chief justice to understand that the message matters as much as the outcome. He has played his role with consummate skill, allowing the law to shape-shift before our very eyes, even as he and his fellow conservatives claim that nothing is happening." * Daniel Luzer: "Community Colleges and the Training Part of Education." * I'm delighted to be included on this list, but I suppose it means I'll have to start taking the Twitter account more seriously. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
THEY WON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'VE GOT 'TIL IT'S GONE.... Whether I can relate to it or not, I understand many of the frustrations the Democratic base is feeling. I can understand the disappointments about some of the successes not including provisions the base wanted to see, and I can understand the number of issues Dems wanted to see tackled in this Congress that weren't addressed. What I can't understand is dismissing the significance of the milestone accomplishments of 2009 and 2010. Greg Sargent this afternoon flagged a poll that I just found painful.
All of the usual caveats apply -- I haven't yet taken a close look at the methodology; I haven't seen similar results elsewhere; it's just one poll; etc. But having said all of that, to deny the accomplishments of this Congress is a serious mistake. Specifically, 20% of respondents in this poll said Congress had accomplished more this year than in recent Congresses, 36% said less had been done, while 37% saw it as about average. Among Democrats, the results were better, but not much -- 33% said this Congress scored well on accomplishments, 23% said less was done, and 37% said this Congress accomplished about the same amount. Putting aside whether one approved of the policy breakthroughs, this poll result makes it seem as if much of the public simply doesn't realize that the policy breakthroughs were unusual. I don't expect the public to have an extensive knowledge of federal policymaking history, but I at least hoped Americans would realize the scope of recent accomplishments. We are, after all, talking about a two-year span in which Congress passed and the president signed the Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, Wall Street reform, student loan reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, etc. Policymakers might yet add to this list in the lame-duck session. Some of these efforts have been years in the making. In the case of health care reform, politicians have been talking about a major overhaul for a full century, but it took this Congress and this president to get it done. This Congress has been about as many accomplishments as recent Congresses? Seriously? Again, maybe you agree with these accomplishments, or maybe you think they were mistakes. That's not the point here. What's worth acknowledging is that we haven't seen this many accomplishments, on this scale, in decades. Norm Ornstein has characterized this Congress as being the most productive in 45 years. Rachel Maddow recently went further, observing, "The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that." Whether rank-and-file Democrats realize it or not, this is why the Republicans' right-wing base is as animated this year as is it -- it's not because Dems are pushing a lot of key progressive priorities that have languished for years; it's because Dems are passing a lot of key progressive priorities that have languished for years. Greg concluded, "Maybe this speaks to an enormous Dem failure to communicate their successes. Or maybe it's another sign of how bloated expectations were amid the euphoria of Obama's win. Or perhaps the sense of just how monumental our problems are -- and the fact that Dems secured such large Congressional majorities -- led rank and file Dems to expect truly historic, paradigm shifting levels of leadership. Either way, these numbers shed fascinating new light on the enthusiasm gap problem. Just wow." —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.... To say that the United States has an infrastructure problem would be a serious understatement. We're currently "saddled with a rapidly decaying and woefully underfunded transportation system," which undermines our economy and weakens our position against global competitors. A new bipartisan investigation found that U.S. investment in preservation and development of transportation infrastructure "lags so far behind that of China, Russia and European nations that it will lead to 'a steady erosion of the social and economic foundations for American prosperity in the long run.'" That's the bad news. The good news is, President Obama seems deeply interested in making infrastructure investments a real priority, and approves of the kind of policies the bipartisan panel of experts endorsed, including "continued development of high-speed rail systems better integrated with freight rail transportation, and expansion of intermodal policies rather than reliance on highways alone to move goods and people." So, there's reason for optimism, right? Sure, we have a serious national problem, but we know how to fix it, and we have a White House that wants to do the right thing. Especially when it comes to high-speed rail, which has broad national appeal, the president has already begun making key investments. But as is often the case, Republicans disapprove of the sensible policy.
Scott Walker (R) wants to kill the investment in Wisconsin, and includes a "we'll stop this train" message in his campaign ads. John Kasich (R) wants to kill a project to link Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati by rail in Ohio. Rick Scott (R) wants to kill the rail project linking Orlando and Tampa in Florida. Meg Whitman (R) wants to kill the plan to link Los Angeles and San Francisco with HSR in California. We're talking about projects that create jobs, spur economic development, relieve traffic congestion, and help the environment, all while offering the promise of transforming American transportation in the 21st century. But they're not tax cuts, so Republicans aren't on board. In fairness, I should note that the bulk of the GOP objections have to do with complaints about infrastructure upkeep and maintenance, which the gubernatorial candidates don't think their states can afford. Of course, as John Cole noted, "Turning down a billion dollar train because you will have to pay 8 million a year in maintenance is like giving away a free car because you might have to one day buy windshield wiper fluid." The Republican line used to be that they can keep the trains running on time. The new line is that they can't keep the trains running at all. —Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
GOP'S 'PLEDGE' OFF TO A VERY SLOW START.... Much of the political world has waited for quite a while for congressional Republicans to offer some kind of policy vision, so the unveiling of the "Pledge to America" two weeks ago was something of a breakthrough. Sure, the agenda was a repackaging of the same old, tired, failed, and discredited ideas the GOP has been touting for years, but it was better than literally nothing. Two weeks after presenting the "Pledge" to the country, how's the proposal doing? Not very well. The same Republican candidates who presumably would be responsible for trying to pass the "Pledge" are pretending it doesn't exist. Most voters, meanwhile, who were presumably supposed to be impressed with the document, have never heard of it.
Adding insult to injury, among those who have heard of the "Pledge," the proposal isn't winning anyone over. In the Post/ABC poll, 45% said the agenda doesn't make any difference, 29% said it makes them less likely to vote Republican, and 23% said it makes a GOP vote more likely. Among self-identified independents, it's even worse -- 51% said the agenda doesn't make any difference, 30% said it makes them less likely to vote Republican, and only 17% said it makes a GOP vote more likely. The point isn't just to point and laugh at the wildly unsuccessful rollout of a widely-panned Republican vision, though there is some entertainment value in that. Rather, I emphasize all of this because the polls offer a hint about a future mandate -- or in this case, the lack thereof. We obviously don't know what's going to happen in the midterms, but it still seems like a very safe bet that Republicans will gain a lot of seats, and quite possibly, the House majority. If so, GOP leaders will very likely start arguing early next year, "Americans elected us after we unveiled our 'Pledge,' which means we have a mandate to advance its provisions." If a clear majority of the country, including Republicans' own supporters, have never heard of the thing, and those who have heard of it aren't impressed, let's state for the record right now that the notion of a "mandate" is pretty silly. —Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
CHUTZPAH WATCH: FAITH-BASED EDITION.... President Obama didn't do away with his predecessor's "faith-based" initiative, but he changed it quite a bit. The administration office was revamped, given a new name, and given a broader mission to include promotion of efforts like job training and combating global warming. Some of the faith-based office's champions from the Bush/Cheney team are less than pleased. James Towey, who led the office under Bush, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that Obama has "politicized" the office in a way that would have gotten him "fired." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson used his Washington Post column today to raise similar points, complaining that Obama "has mainly employed his faith-based office to defend federal initiatives." The irony is rich. Indeed, let's take a moment to set the record straight here. It wasn't that long ago that Bush's faith-based office was at the center of a pretty big controversy. Remember David Kuo? After working for Bill Bennett and John Ashcroft, Kuo helped run the office in Bush's first term, and later conceded what had been widely suspected: the entire faith-based scheme was a political ploy, and the White House office existed to try to help win elections.
This was of particular interest to me personally, because I was the one who uncovered the scheme to use the faith-based office for partisan politics in a 2002 expose. The Washington Post picked up on the story after seeing my piece, and Kuo later confirmed the whole thing. Indeed, let's also not forget that it was John DiIulio who famously said, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." Who was John DiIulio? He was the first head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. And now Towey and Gerson want to complain about Obama "politicizing" the faith-based office? Please. When this White House starts using the office as a conduit for a partisan election scheme, Towey and Gerson can get back to us. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED.... Joe Scarborough, whose media reach now includes a Politico column, argues today that "mixed messages" have undermined President Obama's political standing.
There's a lot wrong with this. Treating "independents" as a coherent entity, for example, continues to be a common mistake. For that matter, labeling the president "polarizing" -- apparently meaning Democrats like him and Republicans don't -- is pretty tired. (It's not Obama's fault Republicans moved to the hard right and started rejecting mainstream ideas, including the ones they came up with.) But most importantly, Scarborough considers the president's lower approval ratings "the biggest mystery surrounding Barack Obama." As the MSNBC host sees it, the president started with enormous support, but saw it slip because, Scarborough believes, Obama insisted on being "the Democrat in chief," and "dividing the country." This is truly bizarre analysis. The president hasn't been especially partisan at all, and has repeatedly angered his Democratic base by trying, in vain, to work and find common ground with Republicans -- whose sole goal appears to be destroying him. Obama, far from being a rigid ideologue or partisan, has been willing to compromise, negotiate, and reach deals in the interest of pragmatism. Scarborough's entire criticism seems backwards. As for the "big mystery" as to why the president's approval ratings could not stay at their early-'09 levels, here's a big hint: unemployment is at 9.6%. When the economy stinks, presidents tend to suffer politically. As Atrios noted this morning, "If the economy was great, all the other dumb stuff people imagine matters might actually, but it doesn't." Let me put this in a way Joe Scarborough can understand: Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 with big poll numbers. By October of his second year in office, unemployment was nearly 11%, the president saw his approval ratings drop to the low 40s, and Republicans were already talking publicly about pleading with Reagan not to seek a second term. Did this have something to do with "mixed messages," "polarizing" politics, and/or Reagan being "the Republican in chief"? Or is it more likely Reagan saw a 25-point drop in his approval rating in less than two years because people were angry about a struggling economy? —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
BUYING ELECTIONS WITH FOREIGN FUNDS?.... President Obama recently delivered a speech warning of a "corporate takeover of our democracy" in the post-Citizens United landscape, with shadowy groups raising millions in secret to help buy elections for Republicans. "None of them will disclose who's paying for these ads," the president said. "You don't know if it's a Wall Street bank. You don't know if it's a big oil company. You don't know if it's an insurance company. You don't even know if it's a foreign-controlled entity." That last point is of particular interest, since the idea of foreign funds buying elections probably strikes most Americans as problematic. With that in mind, ThinkProgress has a fascinating item today.
The Chamber's political activities are an ongoing point of interest here, but ThinkProgress' research raises new questions. The Chamber has been raising money hand over fist to influence the outcome of congressional elections, and to boost its coffers, it's sought out funds from foreign corporations and businesses run by foreign governments. The result is an unwelcome development for the American political system: an interest group is spending $75 million this year to boost Republicans, but not all of that money is American money. Indeed, some of the attack ads you've seen from the Chamber may very well have been financed, at least in part, by foreign governments. Are voters O.K. with this? Is it the kind of development that might draw legal scrutiny? For what it's worth, a spokesperson for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quickly responded to the news, telling Politico that it's "careful" to comply with the law and that it has "a system in place for ensuring that they are not government-controlled entities." What kind of system? It didn't say. There's nothing like vague, terse responses from an already-secretive, conservative lobbying group to set minds at ease.
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. * A bizarre trend, largely limited to GOP candidates: "They're ducking public events, refusing to publicize the ones they do hold and skipping debates and national TV interviews altogether -- out of fear of a gotcha moment that will come back to haunt them." * In Colorado's U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) inching past right-wing challenger Ken Buck (R), 46% to 45%. Most recent polling has shown Buck with a modest lead. * In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows state A.G. Richard Blumenthal (D) leading scandal-plagued wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R), 53% to 41%. The poll comes with news that McMahon has new attack ads, going after Blumenthal on the Vietnam issue. * In New York's gubernatorial race, a new Siena poll shows Andrew Cuomo (D) enjoying a 24-point lead over Carl Paladino (R), 56% to 32%, as a majority of New Yorkers come to the conclusion that Paladino "is a loose cannon, who doesn't have the temperament to be governor." * In Illinois, a new Suffolk poll shows incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn (D), who's been trailing for months, opening up a modest lead over Bill Brady (R), 43% to 37%. The same poll shows Rep. Mark Kirk (R) narrowly leading Alexi Giannoulias (D) in the U.S. Senate race, 42% to 41%. * Though some recent polling in Ohio's gubernatorial race has shown Gov. Ted Strickland (D) within striking distance, a new Quinnipiac poll shows him trailing John Kasich (R), 50% to 41%. For what it's worth, the nine-point gap is better than the 17-point deficit Quinnipiac showed a couple of weeks ago. * Is John Raese, the far-right Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in West Virginia, a resident of West Virginia? It's a debatable point. * In her first television ad of the cycle, extremist Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell (R) of Delaware tells voters, "I'm not a witch." Good to know. * And in Texas' gubernatorial race, former Houston Mayor Bill White (D) is slamming incumbent Gov. Rick Perry for more than $16 million in state technology grants that Perry's administration awarded to companies run by top Perry campaign donors. Perry is also being slammed by his own media allies for being too much of a coward to debate White before the election. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS.... A couple of weeks ago, an item from Bill McKibben caused a stir, as he relayed his difficulties in getting the Obama White House to install solar panels on its roof. McKibben, who took a road trip to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to urge this simple step, had brought students with him from Maine, who were reduced to tears after an unsatisfying meeting with administration officials. McKibben, noting his first-hand experience with the "enthusiasm gap" and blasting the president for having "stiffed" him and his efforts, added some speculation: "the White House political team has decided that if they put solar panels up on the roof, Fox News will use that as one more line of attack; that they somehow believe the association with Jimmy Carter is the electoral equivalent of cooties; and that, in the junior high school lunchroom that now comprises our political life, they didn't want to catch any." That was 18 days ago. Today, the White House that seemed to let environmentalists down took a far more encouraging step forward -- and showed no regard for electoral cooties.
In a statement, McKibben said he was thrilled with the news. "The White House did the right thing, and for the right reasons: they listened to the Americans who asked for solar on their roof, and they listened to the scientists and engineers who told them this is the path to the future," Mr. McKibben said in a statement. "If it has anything like the effect of the White House garden, it could be a trigger for a wave of solar installations across the country and around the world." I've noticed that the White House doesn't always do the right thing immediately, and may not move as quickly as some would like, but more often than not, it lands where it should on issues that matter. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
THE QUESTION FOR JUNIOR DEMINTS.... It's a mistake to expect too much in the way of lucidity from the Senate's most right-wing member, South Carolina's Jim DeMint (R), but once in a while, he manages to raise eyebrows anyway. We learned over the weekend that DeMint spoke a church rally late last week, and emphasized his opposition to marriage equality and reproductive rights. But he also went a little further, adding that gay people and some unmarried women "shouldn't be teaching in the classroom." Note, DeMint is not just some random right-wing voice -- he's a prominent U.S. senator, a kingmaker in GOP primaries, and a possible contender for Senate Republican Leader in the next Congress. With that in mind, Josh Dorner raises a good point.
That's the way the game at least can be played. DeMint has been a generous benefactor to practically all the key far-right Senate candidates this year, including extremists like Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson. Are all of them comfortable with the arguments being offered by their key financial and political backer? Maybe some enterprising reporters covering their campaigns at the local level can ask them? If the situations were reversed, and a powerful Democratic leader had said something similarly bizarre, it's safe to assume the pressure on that Dem's allies would be pretty intense, and some would likely feel compelled to give back some of the money they'd received. In the case of the Junior DeMints, it'd be interesting to know if they'd be willing to put some distance between themselves and their far-right hero. Of course, there's always the possibility that these folks agree with DeMint, and with a month to go before the election, that'd be good to know, too. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
FEAR OF FOX AND THE DEATH OF A CLIMATE BILL.... If you haven't already read Ryan Lizza's monster piece on the life and death of the Senate's climate/energy bill, it's well worth checking out. It's a detailed look at the biggest legislative setback of the last two years, and the various mistakes and missteps that led to its demise. I've seen some suggest that it casts the Obama White House in an especially bad light, and it's true that Lizza highlights some strategic and policy errors that the president's team made, none of which helped the process along. But the key takeaway from the article, at least for me, was that the tri-partisan package was destined for failure, regardless of any other consideration, unless four to six Senate Republicans were prepared to get on board. Which means the package was destined for failure. The Senate bill was shaped by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), giving it the "KGL" moniker, and Lizza explains Graham's role in the process in some detail. We learn, for example, that the South Carolinian reveled in his role as the Senate's "new GOP maverick," and that Graham's relationship with John McCain strained as McCain grew increasingly bitter, jealous, and antagonistic about Graham's willingness to be constructive.
Think about that for a moment. The fate of the legislation -- and the fate of our efforts to combat a climate crisis -- was dependent on a cable news network not focusing too much attention on legislative negotiations. Graham was apparently willing to do some heavy lifting, just so long as Fox News' attention was focused elsewhere. With that in mind, those inclined to blame President Obama for the demise of the bill are overlooking the relevant details here. As Graham saw it, Fox News would have made it impossible for Republicans to go along with the tri-partisan package, and without GOP support, the legislation would be killed. That's what it takes to govern in the 21st century -- quick and quiet negotiations, motivated by fear of a cable news network. David Frum's quote from last year continues to ring true: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox." As a consequence, any hopes of making meaningful progress on preventing a global catastrophe will, barring a midterm miracle, be delayed until 2013 at the earliest. —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
REMEMBER THIS CANTOR QUOTE NEXT YEAR.... All kinds of Republican officeholders, candidates, and media personalities have been talking up the notion of shutting down the government next year, if there's a House GOP majority. John Boehner, the would-be Speaker, said Republicans don't intend to push a shutdown, but he noticeably didn't rule it out, either. With this in mind, the likelihood of a 1995 replay has looked pretty strong, at least to me. It came as something of a surprise, then, to hear House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) throw some cold water on the idea. From a Wall Street Journal piece:
It's an interesting response. Cantor made it seem as if he and his caucus, if they're in the majority, would persuade the country that the far-right vision is the right one. In this scenario, Cantor seems to think a shutdown won't be necessary because the electorate will side with the GOP -- and the White House, the theory goes, would be forced to go along. What I'd like to hear Cantor reflect on is how he and his party would react if, after the "relentless case," Americans reject the right-wing Republican agenda. Regardless, it's a quote to remember: "I don't think the country needs or wants a shutdown." I'm not at all sure Cantor's caucus will feel the same way, but file it away for future reference. He added, by the way, that when it comes to pursuing their agenda, Republicans "have to be careful" or they'll be "seen as a bunch of yahoos." That's his word, not mine. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
AND THEN THERE WERE FOUR (AND MAYBE FIVE).... I have to admit, it really never occurred to me the existence of the minimum wage could be a campaign issue in 2010. And yet, here we are. Last week, Republican Senate hopeful Linda McMahon of Connecticut, the wealthy and scandal-plagued wrestling company executive, suggested it's time to consider lowering the minimum wage. Over the weekend, extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) of Alaska went even further, arguing that the entire concept of the minimum wage is unconstitutional and should be eliminated. But as yesterday progressed, the list of GOP Senate candidates hostile towards the minimum wage grew even longer.
McMahon in Connecticut raised the prospect of a wage decrease, and in the state of Washington, Senate hopeful Dino Rossi has made similar remarks. West Virginia's John Raese, meanwhile, is more in line with Alaska's Miller, and has been candid in his demand that the minimum wage be eliminated altogether. We could arguably say there are five Senate GOP candidates on the list, because Kentucky's Rand Paul has also questioned whether the minimum wage should exist. Remember when the Republican Party used to champion a "living wage"? Its candidates don't. It's difficult to choose the most radical of the bunch, though Raese proclaimed just a couple of weeks ago, "I profess [sic] that minimum wage be eliminated and we operate on the laws of supply and demand just like we did before the Depression." Raese also told CNN yesterday that Tea Partiers are too liberal, adding, "Minimum wage is something that Franklin Delano Roosevelt put in during the Depression. It didn't work during the Depression, it certainly hasn't worked now." Even by Republican standards, attacking the very existence of the minimum wage is crazy. I'd like to say it's unpopular, but the idea is so far from the American mainstream, I can't find any polls even asking the question. (Usually, polls ask whether the minimum wage should go up, not whether it should be abolished.) Put it this way: GOP Senate candidates like Raese and Miller are talking about going back to a time when child labor was legal, and when pillars of American society like Social Security and Medicare didn't exist. I know most Americans are unsatisfied with the status quo, and are impatient with the pace of change. I don't know whether Americans are ready to elect nutjobs to the United States Senate. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
STILL BAD, BUT BETTER.... A month ago, a Washington Post/ABC News poll came as a punch to the gut to Democrats. On the generic congressional ballot, Republicans had an enormous 53% to 40% lead among likely voters, and it looked as if the entire midterm cycle was slipping away from the Democratic majority. A month later, things are looking up for Dems -- at least a little. Several recent polls have showed the Republican advantage slipping a bit, and the new Washington Post/ABC News poll offers similar evidence.
It's a stretch to say the new numbers are good news for Democrats, but they're at least better news. It's certainly helpful, for example, that President Obama's approval rating has ticked up in the poll to 50%, and support for the president's handling of the economy is up four points to 45%. On the generic ballot, a month ago, the GOP lead was 13 points, 53% to 40%. In the newly-released poll, the Republican advantage has shrunk to six points, 49% to 43%. (Among registered voters, Democrats actually lead by four points, suggesting the enthusiasm gap between the parties is still likely to be the deciding factor.) Of course, a six-point deficit may yet prove devastating to Democrats at the ballot box -- at this point in 1994, the GOP lead was two points, and the party went on to do pretty well -- but what Dems are focusing on now is the trend line. Republicans may have peaked in late August and early September, with Democrats starting to turn things around. At least, that's the hope. Elsewhere in the poll, the "Pledge to America" appears to have gone almost entirely unnoticed, and among those who did hear about it, the plan isn't particularly popular. It's not exactly the stuff "mandates" are made of. Also, support for the Affordable Care Act appears to be increasing, at least in this poll. Opponents of health care reform still outnumber backers, but a combined 47% support the new law -- the highest level in nearly a year -- while 48% oppose it. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
October 4, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * The slow process of Iraqi diplomacy: "Officials from the Sunni-backed slate that won the most votes in Iraq's parliamentary election said Monday that they might support letting Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki keep his job if their top candidate is sworn in as president with expanded powers." * A vague State Department "travel alert" that did not include advice to avoid Europe: "The Obama administration formally warned Americans Sunday about potential terrorist attacks in Europe, urging U.S. citizens to be careful on public transportation and at tourist sites." Japan and Sweden issued similar alerts today. * Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan spent her first morning on the high court saying more than Clarence Thomas has said in over a decade. * A pretty significant political corruption scandal in Alabama puts several state lawmakers in handcuffs. * An overdue resignation: "Wisconsin District Attorney Kenneth Kratz resigned today, effective immediately, after several women alleged he sent sexually inappropriate text messages during his time as DA in Calumet County." * ThinkProgress did a nice job pulling together a video collection featuring quite a few Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, all of whom were asked to identify specific areas of the budget they'd like to cut, and all whom failed. * What do you know, James O'Keefe can be even more insufferable. * The religious right has every reason to be nervous about the future of their culture war -- young people just don't look at the world the way the far-right movement does. * On a related note, progress on sex-ed: "For the first time in more than a decade, the federal government is funding sex education programs that are not based solely on abstinence. But they are not just about handing out condoms, either." * Paul Krugman notices that "the Ministry of Propaganda has, in effect, seized control of the Politburo." (Fox News and the Republican Party, I think he's talking to you.) * Considering the future of for-profit colleges after the midterm elections have come and gone. * I don't know if someone enforcing a copyright will force this from YouTube, but for now, "Donald Duck Meets Glenn Beck in Right Wing Radio Duck" is extremely clever and well worth watching. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
ABOUT THOSE DISAFFECTED DEMOCRATIC FACTIONS.... In his column today, the NYT's Ross Douthat identifies the two largest Democratic Party factions, and sees them both turning on President Obama at the same time.
Alone, that is, except for all the Democrats who continue to support the president. The unfortunate thing about the Douthat piece is that it was published the same day as polling data that seems to disprove the column's thesis. Around the same time as the NYT column was published on Dems feeling alienated from Obama, Gallup published results showing that "key groups that tend to lean Democratic remain solidly behind the president, and Obama's staunchest supporters from 2008 remain in his camp." In all, 79% of self-identified Democrats approve of the president, as do 75% of self-identified liberals. Obama also continues to do well with African Americans, young voters, and Hispanics. What's more, it's not just Gallup. Other recent polls show the president with Democratic support that's just as strong, if not stronger. Douthat's column notwithstanding, this isn't even especially new. While Obama's liberal and Democratic backing isn't as high as it was early last year, it hasn't changed much at all over the last six months. To be sure, it'd be foolish to pretend there aren't some frustrated progressive voters out there. They're there, they're unhappy, and the enthusiasm gap between the parties may lead to a Republican congressional majority. I don't want to be dismissive of Dems who have meaningul concerns about the White House. But I still think Douthat's case is overstated. He didn't point to any specific evidence of the president "alienating both" of the key Democratic factions "at once," and at this point, I'm finding the notion that the president is "standing alone" without the bulk of his '08 backers rather hard to believe. —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
THE 'SMALLEST GAP BETWEEN PARTIES IN ROUGHLY A YEAR'.... When campaign watchers talk about the latest survey data, they tend to have two questions: (1) "What do the latest polls say?" and (2) "What do they say after you exclude Rasmussen?" The Republican-friendly pollster may be Fox News' favorite, but many have come to just stop paying attention to the Rasmussen polls altogether. Last week, for example, Andrew Sullivan was concerned about Pollster.com moving to Huffington, making the filtering tools less user-friendly. "Bummer," Sullivan said. "I need to control for Rasmussen!" That said, folks have been buzzing all afternoon about the latest generic ballot survey from the controversial pollster, and for a change, the buzz hasn't been coming from the right.
Casually skimming the last several months, Rasmussen has generally shown Republicans with a generic-ballot lead of around 8 to 10 points -- true to form, the GOP leads with Rasmussen have been greater than with other major pollsters. But that's what makes the new report so interesting. Even if you're inclined to be dismissive of this pollster's results, it's noteworthy that Dems are closing the gap with less than a month to go when comparing Rasmussen data against other Rasmussen data. This could just be a blip or an outlier. Indeed, it's worth noting that this same pollster on the same generic ballot showed Republicans with a 10-point lead just two weeks ago. But for today, I can't remember the last time I saw so many Democrats getting a morale boost from a Rasmussen poll. —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
O'DONNELL CLAIMS ACCESS TO SECRET CHINESE TAKEOVER PLAN.... When it comes to keeping up with extremist Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, one of the problems is that it becomes harder to surprise us. We've come to expect bizarre remarks, so more routine madness, which might be more interesting if applied to a different candidate, barely registers. Note, for example, that Bill Maher's latest revelation barely made a ripple. But even for a Senate candidate who's lied repeatedly about her educational background, is suspected of campaign embezzlement, is suspected of tax fraud, rejects modern science, hates gays, has crusaded against masturbation, has talked about stopping Americans from having sex, and embraces a hysterically extreme political worldview, this is pretty extraordinary.
"There's much I want to say," she said at the time. "I wish I wasn't privy to some of the classified information that I am privy to." Note that this came from 2006. Some of the evidence of O'Donnell's nuttiness comes from the 1990s, which makes it at least slightly easier for her backers to dismiss as errors of youth. But in '06, O'Donnell was seeking a major-party nomination for the U.S. Senate, claiming to have access to "classified" information about a Chinese "strategic plan to take over America." At a certain point, this stops being funny and starts being sad. I've long assumed that O'Donnell is just a ridiculous right-wing activist who managed to win a low-turnout primary. Given her delusional claims about access to classified Chinese intelligence, and her outlandish lies about her own educational background, I'm starting to think there may be something deeply wrong with Christine O'Donnell, which really isn't funny at all. —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A DOUBLE-STANDARD.... I've long tried to understand the double-standard when it comes to politicians and sex scandals -- while common sense suggests they should be far more damaging to Republicans given the party's moralizing, the opposite appears to be true. Dave Weigel takes a crack at explaining this, noting three, recent, high-profile adulterers: Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.), David Vitter (R-La.), and Mark Sanford (R-S.C.). The two Republicans ran as evangelical, "family-values" conservatives, but got caught having sex with women who were not their wives. (In Vitter's case, he was caught with at least two prostitutes.) Neither Republican resigned -- on the contrary, Vitter appears likely to win another term, and Sanford hasn't ruled out seeking public office again. Spitzer, meanwhile, resigned almost immediately after his sex scandal. As Dave sees it, the party identification is irrelevant.
That's fairly compelling, but there are some examples that run counter to Dave's theory. The most striking is Nevada Sen. John Ensign (R), who's in the midst of a sex/corruption/ethics scandal. If he stepped down to focus on his legal defense, a Republican governor would fill the vacancy. For that matter, Ensign has never been wildly popular or influential in the Senate GOP caucus, so forcing him out after he disgraced himself -- and became the subject of a federal criminal investigation -- would have made perfect sense as far as "political advantage" goes. But Ensign didn't resign, and Republicans didn't try to push him overboard. At this point, despite the humiliation, the FBI probe, and the Senate ethics investigation, Ensign remains a Republican senator in good standing -- and he's taking steps to seek re-election in 2012. I like Dave's explanation, but the examples that run counter to the theories are numerous. Rudy Giuliani, for example, was in New York with "a hungry and aggressive media -- including national media -- which had covered him as a star for years," but when he cheated on his second wife with his third, and marched in a St. Patrick's Day parade with his mistress, the idea of him resigning never really came up. When Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) strayed from his wife during his time in office, the was a political advantage to forcing him out -- Nevada's lieutenant governor would have kept the office in Republican hands -- but it didn't matter and he'll serve out the remainder of his term. Democrats caught up in sex scandals -- Spitzer, John Edwards, Jim McGreevey, and to a lesser extent, Eric Massa -- tend to quickly resign and avoid politics. Republicans -- Vitter, Ensign, Sanford, Gingrich, Giuliani -- prefer a far different approach, reject the idea of being permanently disgraced, and the GOP doesn't seem to mind. I can appreciate why IOKIYAR seems like a lazy cliche, but I'm not convinced it's wrong. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
GOVERNMENT SPENDING FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE.... At this point, the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on the right really isn't new, but I nevertheless continue to enjoy revelations like these.
We're not just talking about a few hundred dollars here and there -- the Greiner family received nearly $1 million in federal farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009. When the AP's Henry C. Jackson, who broke the story, sought comment from the Greiner and/or the American Future Fund, they didn't want to talk about it. Imagine that. Also note, Sandra Greiner is herself seeking elected office this year in Iowa, running on a platform of "curbing government spending in Iowa." If I had to guess, Greiner probably never even considered the disconnect. Sure, she receives massive payments from the federal government, but the real problem is the money that goes to those other people. It's why Matt Taibbi can find a nice couple at a Tea Party rally that has spent their life living entirely off money from the government, but who are nevertheless getting involved to protest because "too many people are living off the government." It's why we find all kinds of conservatives who hate government spending in general, but love it when it's directed to them. Paul Waldman's recent item continues to ring true, noting that the key is understanding who benefits from government generosity: "Medicare? Well, that's for people like David and Janice, and their friends, so that's good. 'Welfare'? Well that's for shiftless, undeserving people -- not people like them. Chances are that most Tea Partiers have no idea exactly what the stimulus is paying for, but given their preconceptions about Barack Obama, they're pretty sure it's benefiting people who don't deserve it -- people who are not like them.... Being the beneficiary of government benefits doesn't seem to change some people's view about what sort of person gets government benefits." That certainly seems to apply to American Future Fund president Sandra Greiner, and the more than $935,000 she and her family have received. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
ANGLE'S BACK-ROOM TALKS GO PUBLIC.... It hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention lately, but Nevada's closely-watched U.S. Senate race is actually a three-way contest. Recent polling shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) running neck and neck with extremist Sharron Angle (R), but there's also a Tea Party of Nevada candidate named Scott Ashjian on the ballot. Last week, Angle attended a behind-closed-doors chat with Ashjian at the home of a prominent Republican activist. Tea Party of Nevada Chairman Sid James was also there for the discussion, which was apparently focused on Angle trying to push Ashjian to quit. Unbeknownst to Angle, the meeting was being recorded, and the audio ended up in the hands of Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, who published this report.
I wouldn't say there are any real blockbusters on the recording -- Angle's record of saying insane things is, oddly enough, composed entirely of public remarks -- but it is a fascinating peek behind the curtain. Angle does not, for example, explicitly try to buy Ashjian off, but Angle does suggest she can leverage her Republican contacts to help Ashjian in the future. Specifically, Angle argues that if Ashjian quits and she wins, she'll have "juice" she'll share with him. "You want to see [Sen. Jim] DeMint, I have juice with him.... I go to Washington, DC and want to see Jim DeMint, he's right there for me. I want to see Tom Coburn, he's right there for me. I want to see Mitch McConnell, he's there." All those complaints about Dems trying to reach back-room deals on Capitol Hill? Angle may want to drop that from her talking points. We also learn that Angle isn't exactly confident about the election's outcome -- "I'm not sure I can win" -- and that she really isn't fond of the Republican Party establishment, which she seems to consider far too moderate. In the bigger picture, it's probably not the most important revelation, but the one quote from all of this that struck me as the most interesting was Angle reflecting on the kind of hysterically right-wing contingent she intends to create in Washington. She tells Ashjian, for example, that she was "hated" during her tenure in the Nevada State Senate, where her colleagues considered her a loon and she routinely voted on her own. "41 to Angle was not a compliment," she said. Angle added, however, that in the U.S. Senate, there's likely to be a small contingent of extremists. "When I go [to D.C.], there may be five or six of us.... Maybe Joe Miller (Alaska), Ken Buck (Colorado), Christine O'Donnell (Delaware)." She said Florida's Marco Rubio might even be part of the group. If I'm the DSCC, I'm running with this in Colorado and Florida. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
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 Delaware, extremist Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell (R) suggested to her supporters last week that God wants her to win so she can filibuster the lame-duck session. * New York gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino's (R) business operations netted $3 million in tax breaks with the intention of creating lots of jobs in and around Buffalo. He took advantage of the breaks, but only produced 25 new jobs. * When it comes to a Colorado ballot proposal intended to outlaw abortions, right-wing Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) is for it, against it, and unsure what to make of it. (The proposal would give constitutional rights to fertilized human eggs from the moment of conception.) * Speaking of Colorado, the latest McClatchy-Marist poll shows Buck (R), despite his extremism, leading Sen. Michael Bennet (D) among likely voters, 50% to 42%. The same poll shows Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) cruising in the state's gubernatorial race. * In Illinois' U.S. Senate race, the latest Chicago Tribune poll shows Alexi Giannoulias (D) with a narrow lead over Rep. Mark Kirk (R), 38% to 36%, with 17% still undecided * In Wisconsin's U.S. Senate race, the latest McClatchy-Marist poll shows Ron Johnson (R) still leading Sen. Russ Feingold (D) among likely voters, 52% to 45%. * In Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, the latest McClatchy-Marist poll shows Pat Toomey (R) leading Rep. Joe Sestak (D) among likely voters, 51% to 42%, though the latest Susquehanna Polling and Research survey shows Sestak trailing by only three. * Sometimes I think it would be nice if classiness still mattered in politics: "World Wrestling Entertainment, the company where Connecticut Republican Senate hopeful Linda McMahon served as CEO for years, once teamed up with the 'Girls Gone Wild' enterprise for a pay-per-view event featuring the raunchy, partly-nude show and some of the WWE's wrestling personalities." * High on the list of incumbent Senate Dems who aren't in trouble is Maryland's Barbara Mikulski. A new Washington Post poll shows her leading her GOP challenger, 61% to 29% * Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) refuses to participate in any additional public debates before Election Day -- unless her poll numbers start to drop, at which point she'd reconsider. * President Obama made his first endorsement ad of the season in a new spot for Cedric Richmond, who's taking on Rep. Joseph Cao (R) in Louisiana's 2nd. * In the very last primary of 2010, attorney Jeff Landry won the GOP nomination in Louisiana's 3rd, and is expected to win the seat that has been held by Rep. Charlie Melancon (D), who is running for Senate. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
REMEMBER WHEN JOHN MCCAIN BELIEVED IN GLOBAL WARMING?.... It seems hard to believe now, but Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) actually used to be fairly reasonable when it came to climate change. Before his recent presidential campaign, he worked with center-left senators on a climate bill. In 2007, McCain said he "unequivocally" believes that global warming is "real," and in 2008, after he'd secured the Republican presidential nomination, the Arizona senator acknowledged the climate crisis and said the United States "needs ... a cap-and-trade system." It was a position he reiterated throughout the year. When asked about this on the campaign trail, McCain even had a reasonable answer for deniers -- even if all the science is completely wrong, taking this seriously will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, and give us cleaner air. That was in 2008. What's McCain saying in 2010? Brad Johnson flagged this McCain gem, delivered in New Hampshire while campaigning for Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte, who also went from being sensible to being conservative on the issue:
So McCain went from someone who was quite reasonable, especially for a Republican, to being someone who rejects science and believes mysterious "outside influences" may be misleading the world. For those in the media who think the old John McCain is still in there, and may yet make a straight-talking comeback, please get over it. He's long gone, and he's not coming back. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
OVERESTIMATING BOEHNER'S CAPACITY FOR SERIOUSNESS.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) delivered a largely-overlooked speech last week on the ways in which he'd like to improve the way the House operates. It didn't break a lot of new ground, and the remarks came and went without making much of a splash. David Broder, however, was more impressed than most, and touted Boehner's prescription as a reasonable starting point.
On the surface, I'm comfortable with all of this. Reforming the way Congress does business strikes me as an eminently sensible thing to do, and some of the specifics Boehner brought up are at least worthy of discussion. My concern is not with the message, but with the messenger. Broder characterizes Boehner as a sincere congressional leader with credibility on these issues, who deserves some benefit of the doubt. I don't see it this way at all. For one thing, Boehner has consistently shown a lack of seriousness when it comes to his duties. This has been evident in his refusal to compromise, his petty partisan tactics, and his willingness to play procedural games for the sake of obstructionism. Just a few months ago, the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, not exactly a raging leftist, said Boehner and his leadership team "are becoming the Bart Simpsons of Congress, gleeful at smarmy and adolescent tactics and unable and unwilling to get serious." For another, when it comes to institutional reform, it's hard to think of a worse spokesperson than John Boehner. He is, as we talked about last week, almost a caricature of what's wrong with Washington insiders. Boehner first gained national notoriety in 1996, when the chain-smoking conservative congressman, shortly before a key vote, walked the House floor distributing checks from tobacco industry lobbyists. More recently, Boehner has developed an unrivaled love of corporate lobbyists, with whom the GOP leader coordinates to try to kill jobs bills, Wall Street reform,health care reform, and energy legislation. We're talking about a long-time Capitol Hill veteran who literally meets in smoke-filled rooms to scheme behind closed doors with powerful interests, most of which have hired his former aides for maximum influence and impact. David Broder sees all of this, and nevertheless insists John Boehner should be taken seriously when it comes to reforming how Congress does business. Maybe Broder's thinking of a different John Boehner? —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
LARRY KUDLOW NEEDS A HUG.... The White House held a nice going-away ceremony for Rahm Emanuel on Friday, with President Obama thanking his former chief of staff for his service, and giving him a warm embrace as Emanuel departed. Conservative media personality Larry Kudlow didn't like it, and argued, in all seriousness, that the president shouldn't hug people when "our enemies" are "watching." (via Josh Marshall)
Just to be clear, in case there are any doubts, Kudlow isn't kidding, and this isn't satire intended to make conservatives look ridiculous. Indeed, this also wasn't the CNBC host just riffing off the top of his head -- he published this in a print column. In other words, Kudlow had time to think about this anti-hug argument, and he ran with it anyway. For what it's worth, I searched Google Images for "Bush hug" and found all kinds of images of the former president hugging his supporters, hugging John McCain, hugging foreign heads of state, and even hugging Barack Obama. As far as I can tell, Kudlow never whined about it. Kudlow's column asks, "Am I the only one who saw weakness" in the presidential hug? Yep, Larry, you are. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
PUTTING THE MINIMUM WAGE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.... In recent years, the debate over the minimum wage has largely been limited to two camps: those who want to keep the rate where it is, and those who want to increase it. This year, with the Republican Party moving sharply to the far-right, the debate has added a third contingent that wants to see the minimum wage shrink, if not be eliminated altogether. Republican Senate hopeful Linda McMahon of Connecticut, the wealthy and scandal-plagued wrestling company executive, suggested last week that it's time to consider lowering the minimum wage. Over the weekend, extremist Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) of Alaska went even further in an interview with ABC News.
This is, of course, the same Miller who also believes that federal unemployment benefits, Medicare, and Social Security should all be eliminated. He justifies all of this with a radical "Tenther" worldview that's popular in fringe circles. Pundits often apply overly broad labels to various election cycles, in the hopes of capturing some key overarching trend. It's what's given us phrases like the "Year of the Woman," for example. Can reasonable people agree now that this is the Year of the Nutjob? —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
DNC'S SEPTEMBER FUNDRAISING RAISES EYEBROWS.... As a rule, the major parties' monthly fundraising totals are only interesting if they're surprisingly bad or surprisingly good. For the Democratic National Committee, today's filing belongs in the latter category.
The RNC has not yet indicated what its September haul was, so we have nothing to compare the DNC's $16 million month to, but Michael Steele's operation has struggled on this front last year, and the party waited until late on a Friday afternoon to publish its August totals. If the RNC's September numbers are far short of the DNC's filing, I suspect we'll see another effort to downplay the Republican tally. That said, just how good was the DNC's month? Chris Cillizza described it as "startlingly strong," and "the best month of cash collection for the committee in a midterm election since the passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law early last decade." In terms of the larger narrative, a report like this suggests the listless Democratic rank and file are getting back in the game -- more than 80% of September's total came from smaller online and direct-mail contributions. Indeed, major progressive donors who were prepared to sit out the cycle may very well see these reports, see a hint of momentum, and feel more inclined to pick up their checkbook. Just as importantly, there's an obvious practical benefit from having these millions on hand, ready to be invested in the midterms -- all of the money will immediately go to key states and districts for advertising, GOTV efforts, and field operations. The next question, though, is whether the Dems' resources will be enough. Not only is the larger landscape still quite ugly for the majority, DNC funds may also be swamped by outside money.
—Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
OPTIMISTIC, WITH A CHANCE OF DOUBT.... About a month ago, Mark Halperin suggested Republican gains in the House would be so significant in the midterms, a 60-seat pick-up was not at all out of the question. Last week, when Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) hedged before endorsing John Boehner for Speaker, he referenced a similar number: "[Y]ou may have 60 or 65 brand new faces over here on the Republican side. I don't think it's fair to lock us into to just about anything right now. Let's have the election and see what happens." This kind of assessment has been fairly common. Republicans need a net gain of 39 seats to take back the House majority, and the widespread assumption has been that this won't be especially difficult for the party. The question hasn't been whether the GOP would get to the 39; the question has been whether the first digit of their total gains would be a 4, 5, 6, or 7. Ever so subtly, the assumptions have begun to change a bit. Last week, Chris Cillizza reported that "Democratic strategists are -- quietly -- growing more optimistic about their chances in the fall election." The New York Times reported over the weekend that Republicans remain optimistic, but hoped to be in a better position four weeks out.
The NYT also reported that Republican strategists estimated that "only half of the 39 seats they need to win control of the House were definitively in hand." Many Dem incumbents "remain vulnerable," the report added, "but their positions have stabilized." It's very hard to know, of course, about the motivations for scuttlebutt like this. Indeed, it seems more than likely that GOP sources are finally realizing that they've been playing the expectations game pretty badly -- at this point, a net gain of 35 seats would be perceived as a tragic failure for Republicans -- so they're now making an effort to temper the outlook, keep up enthusiasm, and combat over-confidence. In other words, it's possible the party feels as if it's locked up 39 seats, but they don't want to say they've locked up 39 seats. But these whispers of doubts nevertheless seem to be louder lately. The underlying factors of the cycle haven't changed much in months, and a weak economy coupled with a riled up, right-wing activist base may yet prove to be a disaster for Dems in the midterms. But Politico reported this morning that "once-despondent Democrats now believe that they may be able to avert a total midterm wipeout, as a series of important states now appears to be trending in their direction or growing more competitive." Bottom line: it's not over. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
October 3, 2010
DEMINT WANTS TO ROLL BACK THE CULTURE CLOCK.... Amanda Terkel offers a striking reminder of the conservative Republican ideology, and the way it's inclined to deal with culture issues, even now.
DeMint's hatred for gays isn't new, and given his ideology, is sadly predictable, though this hardly makes it any less odious. Indeed, I'd love to hear how the far-right senator envisions the application of his desired rule -- would those applying for teaching positions be required to divulge their sexual orientation? Would we need some kind of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy when it comes to public school classrooms? But the fact that DeMint goes even further, wanting to prohibit Americans "living in sin" from teaching is extraordinary. Indeed, I'd just like to take a moment to note that it's the 21st century. What's more, Jim DeMint isn't just some random, no-name activist -- he's a prominent U.S. senator, a kingmaker in GOP primaries, and a possible contender for Senate Republican Leader in the next Congress. And if a woman lives with a boyfriend -- or perhaps even has a girlfriend -- DeMint would like to see her prohibited from the teaching profession. My hunch is that the American mainstream doesn't fully appreciate just how far to the right the Republican Party really is in 2010. I also suspect the electorate might be surprised if there's a GOP congressional majority next year, and voters get to see just how conservative this bunch really is. —Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)
FRIEDMAN'S THIRD-PARTY MESS.... Thomas Friedman joins a long list of centrist media figures to call for a third party to offer a sensible alternative to Democrats and Republicans. To put it charitably, the column is wildly unpersuasive. The general pitch is common, but lazy -- the parties are beholden to special interests, and refuse to tell Americans what we need to hear. To turn the country around, honest independents will swoop in and save us from ourselves and shake up the "stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation's steady incremental decline." I didn't care for this column the first hundred times it's been published over the years, and it's not improving with age. Indeed, the more one thinks about the details of Friedman's case, the weaker it appears. He argues, for example, that President Obama has delivered on some real accomplishments in less than two years -- health care reform, Wall Street reform, stabilizing the economy, launching education reform, successes on counter-terrorism -- but the system has prevented broader and better gains.
And what would be better than "pretty good"? A more ambitious health care policy that conservatives blocked; a more ambitious stimulus that conservatives opposed; a comprehensive energy/climate package that conservatives killed; more crack downs on Wall Street that conservatives have vowed to fight; and an education reform agenda that the president has already launched. In other words, Friedman has effectively endorsed the entirety of President Obama's agenda, most of which has passed, can't pass, or has to be severely watered down because of unprecedented Senate obstructionism. But instead of calling for reforming the legislative process, or calling on Republicans to start playing a constructive role in policymaking, or calling on voters to elect more candidates who agree with the agenda the columnist espouses, Friedman says what we really need is an amorphous third party that will think the way he does. Sigh. To hear Friedman tell it, this mystery party is, in effect, needed to pass a bolder, more sweeping version of the Democratic agenda. Why not just elect more and better Democrats to make that possible? Friedman doesn't say. How would the Friedman Party overcome Republican obstructionism? He doesn't say. How would this third party make the kind of institutional changes that have stifled the process in recent years? Friedman doesn't say. Other than that, it's a fine idea. It just gets so tiresome when this crowd argues, for the umpteenth time, that a magical entity can emerge that will agree with Democrats but not really, establish a "consensus" among people with sincere disagreements, and govern successfully without all the messiness that comes with a massive democratic system. Friedman's heart is probably in the right place, but there's a more constructive use of his considerable media influence -- present good ideas, persuade the public of their merit, and call out those who stand in the way of effective policies. —Steve Benen 11:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (67)
CANTOR'S CRACKED CALCULATOR... Here's House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), describing his concerns about the national debt. It's a rather classic example demonstrating the fact that Cantor simply has no idea what he's talking about.
I can't say with any confidence whether Cantor actually believes this nonsense. I've never met him personally, and it's possible that he repeats claims he knows to be false because he thinks of his supporters as fools. And in some ways, I really hope that's the case, because I'd much prefer Cantor to be a shameless conman than a congressional leader who's deeply confused about one of his own top issues. For the record, since President Obama took office, the U.S. has added $2.8 trillion to the national debt. That same debt was $10.6 trillion the day the president was sworn in. (Dear Eric, 10.6 trillion is significantly larger than 2.8 trillion. Sincerely, Steve) I'd add, by the way, that the debt Obama added is a good thing, since running deficits during an economic crisis is a smart, responsible thing to do. Cantor is whining about a wise decision, not a mistake. What's more, it's worth emphasizing that this is the same Cantor who helped Bush/Cheney add $5 trillion to the debt in just eight years, and is currently pushing to add another $4 trillion to the debt in the form of tax cuts.* And just for good measure, let's also not forget that in August, it was none other than Cantor who said the debt didn't matter nearly as much as economic growth anyway. Any way you slice it, Eric Cantor is hopelessly, almost frighteningly, confused. * edited for clarity —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
THEY SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED BY THEIR EMPLOYER, NOT JUST THEIR COLLEAGUE.... Mark Leibovich has a lengthy profile on Glenn Beck in the New York Times Sunday magazine today, and one of the more noteworthy angles comes towards the end when we learn that Fox News doesn't exactly love the deranged activist/host. We learn, for example, that Roger Ailes has been "vocal around the network about how Beck does not fully appreciate the degree to which Fox News has made him the sensation he has become." The network also isn't thrilled that Beck's rating have "declined sharply" over the last year -- he's lost more than a fourth of his audience since the highs of 2009 -- and that Beck has become an advertising problem. Last year, 26 advertisers asked that their commercials not be shown on Beck's program; this year, the number is 296 advertisers. It's so bad that the network has "a difficult time selling ads on 'The O'Reilly Factor' and 'Fox and Friends' when Beck appears on those shows as a guest." But then there's the reaction Leibovich noticed when asking Beck's colleagues about Beck.
On the one hand, it may seem vaguely encouraging that even Fox News is embarrassed by Beck's hysterics. But look at that paragraph again and notice that it includes phrases like "Fox News journalists" and the difficulties created by Beck for a network that wants to "present itself as a legitimate news outlet." Look, Beck is a national embarrassment. There's just no getting around that. But Fox News doesn't get to play this silly game about legitimacy -- if Glenn Beck were to leave the network tomorrow and communicate to his minions exclusively through ham radio, Fox News would still be a pathetic excuse for a news organization, making a mockery of American journalism and offering a case study of everything that's wrong with the discourse of the United States in the 21st century. Fox News is humiliated by Glenn Beck? Please. If there are people working at Fox News concerned about their professional reputations, hoping to be taken seriously as legitimate journalists, it's time they realized the afternoon loon is the least of their troubles. The sighs and/or eye-rolling should apply just as easily to Hannity, Kelly, O'Reilly, Varney, the cast of "Fox & Friends," etc. Those folks who want to be considered credible should be embarrassed by their employer, not just their colleague. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATTITUDES AND VOTING INTENTIONS.... Newsweek has a piece about its new poll in its latest edition, and it features a paragraph Democrats will no doubt find heartening:
It's the next paragraph in the article that Dems will have trouble swallowing.
It's a frustrating disconnect for Democrats. Voters still don't like, trust, or believe Republicans, but the electorate is likely to reward them anyway. The ostensible point of the Newsweek poll was to measure public "anger" this election season, but the data suggested rage may not be all it's cracked up to be.
In other words, it's the same dynamic we've been talking about for months. Struggling economy + high unemployment + public anxiety = bad news for the incumbent majority party. Dems didn't create this mess, but they're likely to shoulder the blame anyway. Why would the electorate support a Republican Party that caused the mess, refused to work to clean it up, and would pursue an agenda likely to make things worse? Because voting isn't always rational. Just as an aside, a week after House Republicans unveiled their "Pledge to America," two-thirds of the country says it hasn't heard of it, and the remaining third is split as to whether it's any good. If the GOP reclaims a majority of either chamber, we're likely to hear the argument that the results were some kind of endorsement of the Republican agenda. That argument will be wrong -- most Americans had no idea what the "Contract with America" was in 1994, and this year's "Pledge" is about as well known now. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
THE LEFT RALLIES 'ONE NATION'.... It may not have had the celebrity draws of Glenn Beck's event in August or the "Rally To Restore Sanity" later this month, but activists from the left rallied on the Washington Mall yesterday, and if nothing else, showed that conservatives aren't the only ones bringing some enthusiasm to the election season.
The event was not a response to any one far-right gathering -- the effort was launched in April, before anyone had heard about Beck's rally, for example -- though organizers hoped a strong turnout would counter the notion that the left is dormant this year. I haven't seen any scientific head-counts, but the Washington Post reported that organizers believed the event "drew a crowd of 175,000 people -- about what they expected." I was not on hand, but in talking to several attendees, one of the points that was emphasized again and again was the diversity of the crowd. Comparing the right's D.C. rallies with what we saw yesterday is, in many respects, evidence of a larger truth -- conservative events feature a lot of folks who look, act, and think alike, and have a whole lot in common. If homogeneity were currency, Tea Partiers would all be as wealthy as the far-right fat cats financing their movement. Yesterday offered a different landscape, with a crowd as diverse as the country. "This march was inclusive," said NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, one of the lead organizers. "We have seen cabdrivers come down from New York, truck drivers from Oklahoma. This is about moving the country with the spirit of unity and hope, and getting the country beyond the divisiveness." If the effort can translate into votes on November 2, Democrats just might surprise the political world. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
October 2, 2010
POETRY V. PROSE.... About a month ago, the White House made a deliberate rhetorical shift. As August vacations wrapped up and lawmakers returned from a month-long recess, President Obama went from making subtle allusions to the midterm elections to making explicit appeals for votes. Talk of trying to find common ground with Republicans was replaced with talk of trying to beat them. With Congress adjourned and a month to go before Election Day, not only has the president's rhetoric intensified, but the frequency with which he takes his case to voters has increased considerably. Just this week, Obama delivered two stem-winders, one at a massive rally in Madison; the other at a Gen44 event in D.C. What's more, it's not just Obama -- Vice President Biden has fired up some good-sized crowds this week, too. Reader D.C. emailed a question yesterday I've heard from quite a few folks lately, which I'm quoting with permission:
Another regular, V.S., noted last week the president seems to have "found his voice," but asked what took so long. After two big events -- one in Milwaukee, one in Cleveland -- the first week in September, even E.J. Dionne Jr. noted, "Until Obama's Labor Day speech in Milwaukee and his statement of principles Wednesday near Cleveland, it was not clear how much heart he had in the fight or whether he would ever offer a comprehensive argument for the advantage of his party's approach.... Suddenly, there's a point to this election. Obama is late to this game, but at least he's finally playing it." I understand where all of this is coming from. These speeches and events aren't just good for Democratic morale and generating some enthusiasm, they're also an opportunity to hear a coherent vision, hear leaders take stock of their accomplishments, and to be reminded of why the country elected them in the first place. It's really quite effective -- what Obama voter doesn't like seeing 20,000 people chant "Yes we can"? But it's worth remembering a Mario Cuomo adage from 1985: "We campaign in poetry, but when we're elected we're forced to govern in prose," which he later truncated to, "You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose." As this relates to the Obama White House, "where have these guys been?" Well, they've been knee-deep in prose, doing the ugly, messy, often-thankless work of running the executive branch of government in the midst of multiple domestic and international crises. There's little doubt that the president is one of the great American orators of our time, but he can't invest his time, year round, in these "Moving America Forward" rallies. The president just doesn't have time -- he's too busy, you know, moving America forward. Besides, the speeches would lose their punch if they were delivered all the time. It's ironic, in a way, to appreciate the stark differences between Candidate Obama and President Obama. The concern among many throughout the campaign process was that Obama was overly reliant on charisma, style, charm, and emotion. What would happen when the crowds went home and the guy had to actually run the joint? Well, now we know -- what would happen is Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, Wall Street reform, student loan reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, a nuclear arms deal with Russia, a new global nonproliferation initiative, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, etc. The irony being, the '07 and '08 concerns were arguably backwards -- this White House seems far more adept at governing than the political/communications efforts that were supposed to be this team's strength. The point is that these guys whose speeches Dems have been enjoying the last few weeks have been there all along. They're just now re-embracing the poetry that got them elected in the first place, not because they forgot about it, but because as far as they were concerned, campaign season hadn't really started yet. —Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
QUESTIONING THE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT A 'CENTER-RIGHT NATION'.... On Election Day 2008, Barack Obama had the highest vote percentage of any Democratic presidential candidate in 40 years. He had the highest non-incumbent vote percentage of any candidate, from either party, in 56 years. The same day, voters elected the largest Democratic House majority in two decades, and the largest Democratic Senate majority in three decades. The day after the election, several leading media voices, including NBC's Tom Brokaw, described the country as "center-right." It followed a massive Newsweek cover story that insisted the United States is a "center-right" nation. David Sirota made a fascinating observation at the time, charting the frequency with which the term "center-right nation" appeared in major media -- and it spiked the day after the election. But as much as I've scoffed at the establishment's near-obsession with the dubious observation, the question of whether it might actually be true seems to have become more relevant recently. After all, self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by a two-to-one margin -- a phenomenon that's been consistent for decades -- and even modest attempts at progressive governing over the last 20 months have caused some major-league hysterics in some circles. What's more, consider the trajectory of the Republican Party over the last several decades. The Republicanism of the Eisenhower/Nixon years would fit comfortably in the Democratic mainstream of the 20th century, while the radicalism of the contemporary GOP doesn't seem to bother voters much -- at least not if this year's polling is any indication. So, is there something to this "center-right" talk? Ezra Klein had a good item the other day making the case that we're probably just not especially ideological. Our politics is resistant to change, which represents a certain kind of conservatism, but not the one the "center-right" is describing.
That sounds right to me. We saw just such a moment in the wake of spectacular recent Republican failures, which gave Democrats an unusually-large majority, and an opportunity to complete some historic achievements. It's that "durable" part that's proving difficult, especially in the midst of a still-struggling economy. Still, it's a debate worthy of additional exploration, so I thought I'd open this up for some debate: is this a "center-right" nation? What's the appropriate metric to even consider such a question? —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (55)
TURNING A POLICY INTO A STORY.... In the '90s, President Clinton was always really good at connecting policy debates to actual people. Republicans didn't just want to cut Medicare and hurt million of seniors, he'd say, they want to cut Medicare for Mary Johnson in Cincinnati, whose story the president was anxious to tell. I think President Obama is getting better at this. Today's weekly address, for example, is all about investments in clean energy, which the White House sees as a key engine of economic growth and environmental responsibility, and which Republicans want to scrap at the behest of oil company lobbyists. The point, of course, is to reinforce a campaign message -- a vote for the GOP would take the country in the wrong direction. But what struck me about the message was the anecdote, not the argument. The president noted that, for far too long, we've increased our dependence on foreign oil, while allowing new energy technologies and high-skilled jobs go overseas, instead of the United States. The Obama administration has begun making investments to turn this around. That's all true, and it's important. But then came the real-world story Obama was anxious to share:"This month, in the Mojave Desert, a company called BrightSource plans to break ground on a revolutionary new type of solar power plant. It's going to put about a thousand people to work building a state-of-the-art facility. And when it's complete, it will turn sunlight into the energy that will power up to 140,000 homes -- the largest such plant in the world. Not in China. Not in India. But in California." "With projects like this one, and others across this country, we are staking our claim to continued leadership in the new global economy. And we're putting Americans to work producing clean, home-grown American energy that will help lower our reliance on foreign oil and protect our planet for future generations. "Now there are some in Washington who want to shut them down. In fact, in the Pledge they recently released, the Republican leadership is promising to scrap all the incentives for clean energy projects, including those currently underway -- even with all the jobs and potential that they hold. "This doesn't make sense for our economy. It doesn't make sense for Americans who are looking for jobs. And it doesn't make sense for our future. To go backwards and scrap these plans means handing the competitive edge to China and other nations.It means that we'll grow even more dependent on foreign oil. And, at a time of economic hardship, it means forgoing jobs we desperately need." Republicans don't really deny any of this. The investments that make the BrightSource plant possible constitute "government spending" and maybe even "socialism," so the GOP is content to let this technology be built in Asia instead of the U.S. We don't need a forward-thinking energy policy, Republicans say, we need tax cuts, drilling, and deregulation of the oil industry. We're left, then, with a story for voters to consider: if you want the BrightSource plant and others like it to thrive on American soil, the argument goes, then you'll have to make the right choice on Nov. 2. —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a fascinating study from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which found that Americans tend to be a deeply religious people, who also happen to be "deeply ignorant about religion."
I had originally thought it was likely that education levels could explain this, with atheists and agnostics perhaps having a more extensive academic background, but Pew researchers found that "atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons still outperform all the other religious groups" in the survey, even after controlling for education. Though the Pew Forum didn't explore this much, it's hard not to wonder why atheists and agnostics are so much more knowledgeable about faith traditions they don't adhere to than actual monotheists. Jamelle Bouie's speculation struck me as persuasive.
Also from the God Machine this week: * Federal tax law prohibits tax-exempt institutions, including houses of worship, from intervening in partisan political campaigns. Nearly 100 politically conservative pastors ignored the law, on purpose, endorsing candidates from the pulpit, in the hopes of starting a legal fight that would overturn the law in court. * This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Snyder v. Phelps, a case about the rights of a fringe hate church to protest at the funerals of fallen U.S. troops. * Anti-Muslim vandalism continues to be a problem in communities nationwide, with vandals spray-painting the words "Worship Satan" along the side of the Masjid Qooba mosque in St. Louis. * Mormons have launched a TV ad campaign showing "regular people doing regular things," before identifying themselves as LDS members. The commercial intend to "address stereotypes" and "influence how people think of the religion." (thanks to R.P. for the tip) * And in Alabama, the Democratic candidate for state attorney general is in some hot water after telling a group of voters, "You have people who say, 'How in the world can you say you are a Christian and you are a Democrat?' Well I don't know how you can say you are a Christian and be a Republican." (thanks to D.J. for the tip) —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
ARE THERE DONATIONS WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT?.... In light of News Corp's seven-figure contributions to Republican campaign efforts this year, Jon Chait asks a good question: why would the media giant bother?
To be sure, the mantra was a joke anyway, but now the ability to even keep up appearances, maintaining an already-thin pretense, is practically gone. So why take the risk? Because, as Ben Smith noted, News Corp probably didn't necessarily know it was taking a risk.
Right. In 2010, corporate campaign disclosure requirements are practically non-existent, so it's very likely that (a) News Corp wanted to advance its political agenda by investing in Republican campaign strategies; and (b) we wouldn't know. I suppose it's worth asking, then, whether there are other major News Corp political contributions that we still don't know about. Karl Rove, for example, in addition to picking up a generous paycheck from News Corp, is also helping spearhead a massive campaign operation this year, raising tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed donations from wealthy benefactors. Is it possible Rove gave Rupert Murdoch and/or Roger Ailes a call, asking for a check? Or how about "Americans for Prosperity"? Or any of the other right-wing groups raising money in secret to finance attack ads against Democrats? It's likely we'll never know, but it hardly seems like a stretch to think News Corp has cut more than two seven-figure checks to boost the GOP this year. —Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
MAHER ISN'T FINISHED WITH HIS O'DONNELL COLLECTION.... Two weeks ago, Bill Maher, who's had extremist Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell on as a guest 22 times over the years. aired a clip from 1999 in which O'Donnell explained that she "dabbled into witchcraft," and even had a date that included a "midnight picnic on a satanic alter" where there was "blood and stuff." In reference to his video collection of her appearances, Maher added, "I'm just saying, Christine, it's like a hostage crisis. Every week you don't show up [on my show], I'm going to throw another body out." Last night marked "Week Three of the Christine O'Donnell comic hostage crisis." In the new installment, O'Donnell talked in 1999 about her religious experimentation, and when asked if she was a witch, she said, "I was. I was." O'Donnell added, "I was dabbling in witchcraft, I've dabbled in Buddhism. I would have become a Hare Krishna but I didn't want to become a vegetarian ... because I'm Italian and I love meatballs." The "Politically Incorrect" episode was aired in July 1999, a few months before the more widely-known clip about her background in witchcraft. Maher added last night that he has some regrets over embarrassing O'Donnell, but that "feeling passes" when he considers what a truly awful senator she'd be. It's worth emphasizing that on the Christine O'Donnell Richter Scale, this new revelation doesn't register nearly as high as some of her other recent gems. We are, after all, talking about a major party nominee to the U.S. Senate who's lied repeatedly about her educational background, is suspected of campaign embezzlement, is suspected of tax fraud, rejects modern science, hates gays, has crusaded against masturbation, has talked about stopping Americans from having sex, and embraces a hysterically extreme political worldview. By comparison, her background in witchcraft, Buddhism, and inclination to become a Hare Krishna seems quite mild. That said, much of the religious right considers those who've "dabbled" in these minority faiths to be wicked, so concerns about her among some conservatives may be intensified by last night's clip. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
CNN SHOWS RICK SANCHEZ THE DOOR.... After Rick Sanchez's offensive radio tirade came to light yesterday, the question wasn't whether CNN would punish him, but rather, how severe the punishment would be. Late yesterday afternoon, we found out.
That, by the way, was not an excerpt of a longer statement from the network; it was CNN's statement in its entirety. Was the response proportional to the offense? It's a judgment call, of course, but once a high-profile CNN personality starts alluding to Jews running the media, it's hardly a stretch to think his career is in jeopardy. Sure, Pat Buchanan and Erick Erickson have made equally offensive remarks, and remain paid media professionals at major news organizations, but that's not much of a defense. In Sanchez's case, it's also likely that there was a cumulative effect at play -- he's annoyed the network's management before, and this may have represented the final straw. The NYT report added that Sanchez "was a polarizing figure within CNN, but under the channel's former president, Jonathan Klein, he was rewarded with more air time, most recently a two-hour block in the afternoons. Mr. Klein was fired last week." It's possible, then, that Sanchez's future with the network was precarious anyway, and his arguably anti-Semitic rant simply precipitated the end of an awkward partnership. By the way, the audio of Sanchez's on-air remarks are online, and listening to the bitterness and sarcasm actually makes him sound even worse. Postscript: Just as an aside, Josh Marshall raised a good point last night: "Rick Sanchez's mistake was not being a Tea Party candidate. Then there wouldn't be any problem." That sounds about right. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
October 1, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * A governing deal in place in Baghdad? "Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq appeared almost assured of a second term in office on Friday after winning the support of an anti-American Shiite Islamic movement whose return to political power could reshape relations with the United States.... [A]t a time when public frustration and extremist violence have mounted, it could still take weeks or months more for Mr. Maliki to secure reelection and form a new government." * As the diplomatic efforts continue, today marks an unflattering milestone: "Iraq on Friday will surpass the record for the country that has gone the longest between holding parliamentary elections and forming a government, experts say." * Rahm Emanuel gets an emotional send-off from the White House, as Pete Rouse gets to work. (It's still unclear just how long Rouse's tenure is intended to last.) * Horrifying beyond words: "American scientists deliberately infected prisoners and patients in a mental hospital in Guatemala with syphilis 60 years ago, a recently unearthed experiment that prompted U.S. officials to apologize Friday and declare outrage over 'such reprehensible research.'" * Pakistan: "Political upheaval in Pakistan and a sudden rupture in relations with the United States have heightened the Obama administration's concern about the stability of a crucial partner in its Afghanistan war strategy." * Crisis in Quito*: "Ecuador's military staged a spectacular rescue Thursday night to free President Rafael Correa, who was holed up in a hospital for more than 12 hours by a police uprising that threatened the nation's stability." * Remember the flash crash? "A trading firm's use of a computer sell order triggered the May 6 market plunge, which sent the Dow Jones industrial average tumbling nearly 1,000 points in less than a half-hour, federal regulators said Friday.... The firm's trade, worth $4.1 billion, led to a chain of events the ended with market players swiftly pulling their money from stock market, the report said." * Daniel Luzer: "[T]here's something wrong with encouraging everyone to get a BA. But there's something very wrong with the fact that our country doesn't really offer much for high school students who aren't going to earn a BA." * R.I.P., Neil Alan Smith. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. *Corrected —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
SHE REALLY SHOULD GET OUT MORE.... Did extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) really say Sharia law has "taken hold" in some U.S. cities? Pretty much.
I'm not entirely sure exactly what Angle's even trying to say here. She said she doesn't know "how that happened in the United States." How what happened? The implication seems to be that a "foreign system of law" has "taken hold" in Dearborn and Frankford, which is completely insane. Those communities, like every other community in the country, follow American law. Does Angle believe cities where there are a lot of Muslim Americans necessarily fall under Sharia? She's already made clear that she rejects the principle of church-state separation, so perhaps in her twisted worldview, predominantly Muslim cities suddenly become little theocracies unto themselves -- carve-out exceptions to the First Amendment. I really don't think she's well. —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
NOT A BAD RETURN ON A COSTLY INVESTMENT.... Whether one approves of 2008's financial industry bailout or considers it the worst piece of legislation in American history, there's one thing we can all be very glad about: its price tag.
Two years ago, the assumption among many was that these hundreds of billions of dollars would rescue Wall Street, but that we'd never see that money again. And yet, as of now, it appears likely that the entire initiative won't cost the American taxpayers a dime -- we might actually make money on the deal. Of course, we almost certainly won't hear anyone from the administration boasting about these encouraging results, because public revulsion for TARP is unrivaled in our discourse. Indeed, the word "bailout" has managed to become synonymous with "evil," so much so that nearly every policy debate involves participants trying to figure out a way to characterize the other side's position as a "bailout" to someone. Brian A. Bethune, the chief financial economist in the United States for IHS/Global Insight, has raised some criticisms about TARP and its structure, but he called the program over all "a tremendous success. Now obviously, they can't go out on the campaign trail and say that, because certainly, for a lot of voters, it's just not going to resonate." A former investment banker added that the industry rescue "is the best federal program of any real size to be despised by the public like this." Matt Yglesias had an interesting take on this earlier, noting that it's "pretty remarkable" to think the bank bailout, hated though it may be, won't cost us anything.
Nevertheless, TARP expires this weekend, and going forward, the Treasury "can no longer commit money to new initiatives or recycle repayments to other purposes." —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
OBAMA REMINDS SENATE ABOUT JUDICIAL VACANCY CRISIS.... Before the Senate adjourned, Republicans agreed to confirm 54 pending nominees who've been waiting to get to work in the Obama administration. The GOP refused to act, however, on 23 judiciary nominees who've been waiting for months for an up-or-down floor vote, but who've been blocked by the Senate minority. President Obama reminded senators yesterday that this can't continue.
"If there is a genuine concern about the qualifications of judicial nominees, that is a debate I welcome," he added, but said that the current situation "does a disservice to the greatest traditions of this body and the American people it serves." Truer words were never spoken. Indeed, the administration seems to be considering this with an added sense of urgency lately. Just this week, Attorney General Eric Holder had an op-ed on the subject, explaining that "our judicial system desperately needs the Senate to act.... The federal judicial system that has been a rightful source of pride for the United States -- the system on which we all depend for a prompt and fair hearing of our cases when we need to call on the law -- is stressed to the breaking point." There also seems to be a growing recognition in the media about this. Dahlia Lithwick and Carl Tobias made the case this week that the vacancies in the federal courts is literally dangerous; the L.A. Times editorial board is urging Republicans to "quit stalling"; Politics Daily called the fiasco "embarrassing" to the Senate; and The Hill ran an item accurately characterizing this as an "emergency." I'm glad to see this getting some attention, but the next step is the GOP caucus actually letting the Senate function for a change. If Republicans don't like the various nominees, they can and should vote against them. But simply bringing the entire process to a generational standstill is untenable. I know this isn't the sexiest issue, but there's a crisis on the courts, and it's the direct result of Senate Republicans engaging in tactics that no one has ever seen before. It is no exaggeration to say the status quo is the worst it's ever been -- the Alliance For Justice recently reported that President Obama "has seen a smaller percentage of his nominees confirmed at this point in his presidency than any president in American history." Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently noted the broken process, and argued, "It's important for the public to understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk." —Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
'WE PLAY FOR FIRST PLACE'.... It wasn't one of the four scheduled "Moving America Forward" rallies the White House has scheduled, but President Obama spoke at a Gen44 event last night in D.C., as part of a DNC effort to target Democrats under the age of 40. Andrew Sullivan saw the speech and said it "knocked my socks off," so I checked it out. I've been watching the president's rhetoric quite a bit, especially over the last few weeks, and last night's speech wasn't too much different from the one he delivered at the Madison rally earlier this week. There was one part that was new, though. Obama focused a fair amount of attention on the House GOP's "Pledge to America" -- is it me, or did the Republicans stop talking about this all of a sudden? -- which the president noted was "actually written with the help of a former lobbyist for AIG and Exxon-Mobil, so that gives you a sense of how much change they intend." He explained that the GOP's main economic policy is $700 billion for tax cuts for the rich. When pressed on how to pay for it, Republicans talk up a $100 billion cut in discretionary spending, which as I've tried to explain, would generate drastic and painful reductions that undermine the middle class. But Obama put this in practical terms: "When you ask them, 'Well, where are you going to get this $700 billion? Do you have some magic beans somewhere? I mean, how is this going to come about?' They don't have an answer. "Now, they will say, 'Well, we're going to cut spending. ' So you say, 'Okay, what are you going to cut?' And then what they say is, 'Well, we'll cut education by 20 percent. We'll eliminate 200,000 children from early childhood education programs like Head Start. We'll cut financial aid for 8 million college students. "At a time when the education of our country's citizens is probably the best predictor of that country's economic success, they think it's more important to give another tax break to folks who are on the Forbes 400 list. The more the White House can fit speeches like these into the president's schedule, the better off Democrats will be on Nov. 2. —Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... When I'm filling out my March-Madness-style bracket for the Most Ridiculous Member of the U.S. House, I'm giving #1 seeds to Steve King and Michele Bachmann without a second thought. Louie Gohmert has clearly earned one, too. But the other #1 seed has to go to Rep. Paul Broun (R) of Georgia, thanks to comments like these:
It's hard to know where to start with something like this. I suppose it's worth noting that CDC officials has launched a public-service campaign on the benefits of a healthy diet. This includes recipes people can try that incorporate fruits and vegetables -- but it does not include federal officials calling your home to check up on what you're eating. It's also probably worth taking a moment to pause and note that "socialism" is an economic model in which there's public ownership of wealth and the means of production. The right is getting lazy about this, using the "s" word to describe everything they don't like, but there's nothing especially "socialistic" about the ridiculous idea of authoritarian government contacting individuals to see if they're eating healthily. Public health officials encouraging people to eat better foods is not a step towards dictatorship. It may not work -- we are the country that invented the Double Down, for goodness sake -- but there's nothing wrong or abusive about a public-service campaign. Broun may or may not realize this. To his mind, promoting a healthy diet might as well be Soviet-style tyranny. But his opinion, while twisted, is irrelevant -- when a member of Congress runs around repeating dishonest nonsense, he makes the discourse that much worse. Indeed, Broun's foolish backers very likely have no idea that he's full of it, and might actually believe his lies. And that's a shame, because if anyone's discredited himself, it's the hysterical right-wing congressman from Georgia's 10th. It was, after all, Paul Broun who said cap-and-trade would kill people; the Affordable Care Act will dictate what kind of car Americans can drive; the health care reform effort reminds him of "Northern Aggression"; and that he considers President Obama to be a Hitler-like figure intent on establishing a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship on Americans. He's quite a congressman. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
RICK SANCHEZ, GO ENJOY SOME QUIET TIME.... Part of CNN's Rick Sanchez's shtick is that he's something of a buffoon. Despite occasional moments of lucidity, Sanchez is known for making odd on-air remarks and pulling bizarre stunts for no apparent reason. With that in mind, it's not surprising that Jon Stewart has, from time to time, made Sanchez the target of some barbed jokes. After having been embarrassed on "The Daily Show" more than a few times, I don't doubt that Sanchez starts to get resentful. But there's a right way and a wrong way to respond to this sort of mockery. This, for example, is the wrong way.
As Sanchez sees it, Stewart is one of the "elite, Northeast establishment liberals" who consider Sanchez unworthy, apparently because of his ethnicity. After talking about Stewart's parents -- I'm still not sure why -- Sanchez was asked who, exactly, Stewart is bigoted against. The CNN personality "everybody else who's not like him." If he had just stopped there, this would only be a dumb thing to say. But he didn't stop there.
Specifically, Sanchez said, with plenty of sarcasm, "He's such a minority, I mean, you know, please, what are you kidding? ... I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they -- the people in this country who are Jewish -- are an oppressed minority?" I have no idea what this guy was thinking, but these remarks are both offensive and idiotic. An apology seems like a no-brainer, and I wouldn't be surprised if CNN asked Sanchez to go enjoy a little quiet time. Update: Greg Sargent posted the relevant portion of the transcript, and suggests there's a way to interpret the comments as being less anti-Semitic. I'm not convinced, but go ahead and check it out and see what you think. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
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. * Are Democrats increasingly worried about the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut? Yep. The DSCC "has bought approximately $300,000 worth of TV air time" in support of state A.G. Richard Blumenthal (D). * In Massachusetts' gubernatorial race, independent candidate Tim Cahill's running mate is leaving the ticket and endorsing the Republican, and rumor has it that Cahill may drop out as early as today. The move would likely make re-election more difficult for incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick (D). * California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman (R) hasn't quite figured out what to do with charges she hired a maid who entered the country illegally, and her version of events appears to be changing. * Last year, Democrats had high hopes for the U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire, but those hopes have since all but disappeared. As of yesterday, a University of New Hampshire poll showed Kelly Ayotte (R) leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D) by 15, 50% to 35%. * The Illinois gubernatorial campaign appeared to be a major GOP pick-up opportunity, but a new Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows Republican Bill Brady's advantage fading fast. Incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn (D) is now narrowly ahead, 39% to 38%. * Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D) new campaign ad in Nevada reminds voters that Sharron Angle (R) has opposed mandatory coverage for mammograms. * In Florida's gubernatorial race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Rick Scott (R) leading Alex Sink (D), 49% to 43%, among likely voters. * In a bit of a surprise, the NRA has thrown its support to Rep. Brad Ellsworth's (D) Senate campaign in Indiana. Polls shows Ellsworth trailing badly against corporate lobbyist Dan Coats (R). * With nearly all polls in Wisconsin showing Sen. Russ Feingold (D) trailing right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R), MoveOn.org has made the incumbent's re-election a top priority. * In New York's gubernatorial race, the latest Marist Poll shows Andrew Cuomo (D) leading Carl Paladino (R) by 15 points, 53% to 38%. Meanwhile, Paladino is walking back some of his latest attacks against his opponent, but not in an honest way. * In New Mexico's gubernatorial race, PPP shows Susana Martinez (R) leading Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (D), 50% to 42%. * And in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race, PPP shows Elaine Marshall (D) struggling to catch incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R), whose lead has increased to 13, 49% to 36%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
PAUL RYAN STARTS LISTENING TO THE POLLSTERS, TOO.... Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the far-right lawmaker who'll head the House Budget Committee if Republicans take the House, likes to talk about entitlement policy. He's even presented a fairly specific vision called the "Roadmap for America's Future." Because it's a radical budget plan, Ryan can't help but notice his fellow Republicans -- who agree with him on the substance -- are too nervous to say so. Over the summer, he complained, "They're talking to their pollsters and their pollsters are saying, 'Stay away from this.'" It looks like Paul Ryan has begun talking to the pollsters, too. (via Pat Garofalo)
Wait, Ryan doesn't want candidates to talk about this to voters? Wasn't he complaining about exactly this kind of cowardice a couple of months ago? It's a reminder that for all the bravado and high electoral expectations, the right is still aware of the fact that their agenda isn't popular, and presenting it to the public would cost the GOP dearly. If you're just joining us, Ryan's "roadmap" is a right-wing fantasy, slashing taxes on the rich while raising taxes for everyone else. The plan calls for privatizing Social Security and gutting Medicare, and fails miserably in its intended goal -- cutting the deficit. As Paul Krugman recently explained, the Ryan plan "is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future." No wonder he's called for candidates to stop talking about entitlement reform on the campaign trail. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
WELL DESERVED KUDOS FOR THE RECOVERY ACT.... There's a certain awkwardness that comes with defending last year's stimulus, and not just because polls tend to find it unpopular. On the one hand, we see entirely legitimate criticisms from the left about the need for the Recovery Act to have been much bigger. On the right, we see complaints that the stimulus was a bad idea because ... well, whatever it is conservatives are unhappy about now. But the White House's defense of the economic initiative happens to be true -- whether the truth is popular or not.
It's frustrating to realize just how backwards so many of the complaints have been from the right. Conservatives think stimulus investments were ripe with abuse, but "stimulus contracts and grants have so far been relatively free of the fraud charges that plague more routine government spending programs." They think the effort was too slow, but the administration "met nearly a dozen deadlines set by Congress for getting money out the door." Conservatives are convinced it failed to serve its intended purpose, but the Recovery Act appears to be "on track to meet the administration's goal of preserving 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year." The right likes to make the case that this was also bad for the country over the long-run, but that's backwards, too: "[W]ithin the confines of that stimulus, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress managed to make a host of long-term investments that would've been considered huge accomplishments in any other context, but are largely unknown inside this one. Huge investments in green energy, in health information technology, in high-speed rail, in universal broadband, in medical research, in infrastructure. The Making Work Pay tax cut. The Race to the Top education reform program." Of particular interest in this new report is just how effective oversight has been in preventing wasteful spending:
Of course, with weak economic growth and an unemployment crisis, applauding the Recovery Act seems unsatisfying. Had it been bigger, its benefits (and popularity) would have been far greater. Its limited scope was a costly mistake, as were some of the overly-optimistic predictions from early last year. That said, the stimulus still happens to be one of the more successful governmental accomplishments of this generation, popular opinion notwithstanding. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
THE KIND OF AD WE WERE SUPPOSED TO SEE MORE OF.... The Affordable Care Act doesn't poll especially well, at least in the general sense. When pollsters ask the public what they think of the health care reform package signed by President Obama, the law fares poorly. The specific provisions of the ACA, however, poll very well. We just hear a lot less about these elements because Democrats are afraid to bring up the subject. Dem candidates who might be inclined to remind voters, for example, that they delivered new protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, end up saying nothing. To point to popular reform measures would be to bring up an unpopular law. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) just isn't like most Dems, and as statewide candidates go, he's an incumbent with the courage to buck larger trends. In his new ad, released yesterday, Feingold not only touts his successful efforts on health care reform, he also goes after his opponent, right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R), for supporting repeal. One of the people featured in the spot explains, "Russ fought insurance companies to stop insurance companies from denying Wisconsin children health care due to pre-existing conditions." Viewers are also told, "Mr. Johnson would put insurance companies back in control.... Letting them raise premiums and increase our costs whenever they want." Substantively, that's entirely true. Politically, most Dems just aren't willing to even try to make this case. Back in March, there seemed to be a plan on the table, waiting for Democrats willing to run with it: go on the offensive against Republicans talking about repeal. Does the GOP really want to raise taxes on small businesses? Do they really want to reject protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions? Do they really want to take coverage away from 30 million middle-class Americans? Those questions, we now know, aren't part of the discourse, because Dems are running away from their milestone accomplishment. That is, most Dems are. Feingold is not. Recent polls show Wisconsin rallying behind Johnson, despite his far-right ideology, confusion, hypocrisy, and controversial background. With a month to go, Feingold is taking a risk, doing what no other Democratic Senate candidate is willing to do. Will the gamble pay off? We'll find out in 31 days. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
AHEAD IN THE POLLS, MILLER STARTS MEASURING THE DRAPES.... Alaska's extremist Senate candidate, Republican nominee Joe Miller, was in D.C. yesterday to raise some funds from Washington insiders. While he was there, his official Twitter account decided to pull a Leon Lett, and start dancing before reaching the end zone.
A fourth tweet referred to Senate Republicans as his "future colleagues." I realize recent polls show Miller in the lead with a month to go, but it's hard to imagine anyone finding this kind of hubris appealing, especially in a candidate who's already seen as a radical. Miller's spokesperson blamed an aide for the since-deleted messages. It's the same move Miller's campaign made when the official Twitter account featured a message comparing Sen. Lisa Murkowski to a prostitute. The irony is, much of the Miller campaign against Murkowski was focused on pushing back against a sense of entitlement. And yet, 33 days before the actual election, Miller is already parading around like he owns the place. I have no idea how this will play locally, but Miller, who hasn't been in Alaska a particularly long time, drew fire from Mudflats yesterday: "Alaskans still get to go to the ballot box before you pick out the drapes, Joe. Do us all a favor. Click your heels together three times and go back to Kansas. Alaskans don't need another arrogant, smug, entitled politician who's in it to climb the ladder of their own ambition. We've had enough." —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
MCMAHON'S MILLIONS AND THE MINIMUMS FOR THE MASSES.... A scandalous multi-millionaire can buy a primary win, and even run enough ads to position herself to buy a Senate seat, but it's tough to put a price on sound judgment and policy smarts. Connecticut's Linda McMahon was reminded of this yesterday.
McMahon, who made her fortune running a scandal-plagued wrestling company, added that she had no idea what the federal or state minimum wage currently is. (Connecticut's minimum wage is $8.25 an hour, while the federal wage is $7.25 an hour.) While McMahon camp later denied the candidate supports lowering the minimum wage, the facts proved hard to spin. She was asked about a reduction to the rate, and McMahon said, "We should always review the policy that is put in place.... I think we ought to look at all of those issues in terms of what mandates are being placed on businesses and can they afford them? ... We should listen to our small business operators, and we should hear what it is they have to say and how it's impacting their businesses and make some of those decisions." "Review," the Republican campaign said, doesn't necessarily mean "reduce." But in context, is there any doubt about McMahon's position on this? During a struggling economy, the far-right Senate hopeful clearly buys into the notion that the minimum wage may hurt businesses. Why else would she want to "review" it? As a policy matter, McMahon clearly doesn't know what she's talking about. As a political matter, she hasn't done her campaign any favors
—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
DROPPING AN ALREADY-THIN PRETENSE, CONT'D.... In mid-August, we learned that media giant News Corp., Fox News' parent company, had broken new political ground by contributing $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. There was no modern precedent for this kind of financial intervention by a media organization, and asked for an explanation, a spokesperson said it was because News Corp agrees with Republicans. As it turns out, the conservative conglomerate wasn't done. In addition to RGA donation, and in-kind contributions by Fox News personalities on a daily basis, News Corp has now also contributed an additional $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its election-year activities. Regular readers are well aware of the Chamber's ties to the Republican Party, but let's be clear about exactly what News Corp is investing in.
I don't imagine anyone in the political world will be especially surprised by these developments. Major media companies routinely make modest contributions to both Democrats and Republicans, but News Corp and Fox News are obviously driven by a very different set of standards -- and motivated by a different kind of agenda. For years, there's been a half-hearted attempt to maintain a thin pretense about remaining "fair and balanced," but as the Republican Party grows more hysterical, its propaganda outlet and corporate benefactor no longer feel the need to even bother keeping up appearances. Ideally, seven-figure contributions like these would change the nature of the larger discussion. To this day, professional media outlets go along with the game, adding polite caveats -- "some have accused" Fox News and News Corp of "favoring" the GOP -- to truths that haven't been in doubt for quite some time. For crying out loud, several likely Republican presidential candidates are literally on News Corp's payroll. Can we now, at long last, agree that if the lines of professionalism still exist, Murdoch's enterprises have crossed them? This is a partisan political operation, not a journalistic one. It doesn't seek to cover elections, it seeks to influence the outcome of elections. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
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
|
||||||||
