 |
 |
   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?
|
   |
|
|
July 31, 2010
DON'T BLAME BOEHNER; HE JUST WORKS THERE.... President Obama hosted a meeting at the White House with the leadership of both parties, from both chambers, and the discussion reportedly turned to Bush's tax cuts. GOP leaders want all the cuts to remain in place, no matter how many billions of dollars it adds to the deficit. The president wants to keep the cuts for everyone except the very wealthy. By all accounts, the chat wasn't especially constructive, but I was glad to see this exchange took place.
They're laughing at you, John, not with you. It's a telling anecdote. The White House vision is to largely follow the game plan crafted by congressional Republicans less than a decade ago. It was the GOP's idea -- they passed tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, and set the cuts to expire at the end of 2010. The point was to obscure the cuts' cost, play a dangerous budget game, and make it so that the GOP wouldn't have to pay for their own experiment. We saw the results, which can only fairly be described as "total failure." Obama is prepared to do part of what Republicans included in their own plan -- letting tax rates for those making more than $250,000 return to the same levels that existed when the economy was strong, as was outlined in the Republican plan of the Bush era. Reminded of whose idea this was in the first place, Boehner, in effect, argued that he has nothing to do with the plan he voted for, and which was crafted by his own caucus. Indeed, Boehner was, at the time, responsible at the committee level for helping shape the tax-cut package, and was on hand at the White House for the bill-signing ceremony. No wonder the room broke out in laughter. As for the substance, Boehner told the president allowing the higher rates to return to pre-Bush levels would be bad for small businesses (small businesses that need some help, which Senate Republicans have blocked). As a policy matter, Boehner's argument is patently ridiculous, but the fact that he's pushing it in a private meeting confirms my suspicions -- Boehner actually believes his own nonsense, and isn't quite sharp enough to realize he doesn't know what he's talking about. In the meantime, Boehner is also urging Republicans to stop referring to the Bush tax cuts as the Bush tax cuts. GOP members are supposed to fight for the failed former president's tax policy, but avoid using the failed former president's name. They really do think voters are fools. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
A VICTORY LAP.... When President Obama intervened last year to rescue American auto manufacturers, Republicans were apoplectic, and felt they had all the proof they needed that the White House was bent on a radical, socialistic agenda to destroy capitalism. The GOP screamed that the industry rescue wouldn't -- and couldn't -- work, and that the entire scheme would be a disaster for taxpayers and our very way of life. A year later, the president is understandably boasting about getting the policy right, and as the Washington Post noted this morning, "many of the critics have retreated from their sharpest attacks as they watch the auto industry once again turn a profit." With this in mind, the president used his weekly address to take a victory lap, and explain that while the industry bailout wasn't ideal, he had to make the tough call -- a decision that we now know was correct. Recording the address at a GM plant in Detroit, Obama explained, "[I]f some folks had their way, none of this would be happening at all. This plant might not exist. There were leaders of the 'just say no' crowd in Washington who argued that standing by the auto industry would guarantee failure. One called it 'the worst investment you could possibly make.' They said we should just walk away and let these jobs go. Today, the men and women in this plant are proving these cynics wrong. Since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, our auto industry has added 55,000 jobs -- the strongest period of job growth in more than ten years. For the first time since 2004, all three American automakers are operating at a profit. Sales have begun to rebound. And plants like this that wouldn't have existed if all of us didn't act are now operating maximum capacity. " The president made nearly identical points in a speech to factory workers yesterday. The point wasn't subtle, but it was accurate -- if we'd listened to Republicans, the American auto industry would be left in shambles, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost, and the backbone of American manufacturing would have been broken. At a moment of crisis, Republicans got it wrong. Again. MSNBC's First Read noted yesterday, "We said it at the time: As the GM 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." There are worse things to base an election on -- 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. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the deeply offensive, increasingly-ugly conservative crusade against Muslims, which was initially limited to opposing the construction Islamic community centers and mosques, but it's metastasizing quickly.
So, the anti-Muslim, Quran-burning preacher wants us to believe he has "nothing against Muslims." Why would anyone doubt that? Another pastor from Dove World explained that his church believes in burning Islamic texts "because we're Christian," adding, "Being Christian does not mean you go to church. Being Christian does not mean you believe in God. Being Christian means you are Christ-like, or at least attempting to go in that direction. And Jesus, the Christ, he was sent -- he appeared -- to destroy the works of the Devil. So that's what we're gonna do." Maybe there's some director's cut version of the New Testament I'm not aware of, featuring a hateful, book-burning Jesus. For the record, the National Association of Evangelicals, the nation's largest body of evangelical Christians, has denounced Dove World's efforts. Also from the God Machine this week: * Evangelical Christian minister Tim LaHaye, best known for helping write the best-selling "Left Behind" series, told Fox News this week that the Obama administration's agenda is bringing us "closer to the apocalypse." Asked if we're "now living in the end times," LaHaye said, "Very definitely." (thanks to reader D.J.) * California Tea Party activist Diane Serafin organized a protest at a Riverside County-area mosque this week, and urged Christians to bring dogs to the demonstration because "they hate dogs." The point of the protest was to denounce the construction of a new mosque, which Serafin perceives as part of an effort to "take over our country." She told Evan McMorris-Santoro, "I want you to stress this -- I'm not prejudiced. I worked retail for nine years and I didn't even know my manager was gay until someone told me. And when I found out, I didn't care." I guess that settles it, then. * Newsweek reported the other day that, over the last four decades, church attendance goes up when the GDP goes down. * And Ted Haggard this week said he "over-repented" for having an affair with a male prostitute. Whatever you say, Ted. —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
HEALTH-CARE SCHEME SCUTTLED IN FLORIDA.... It's a fairly straightforward strategy: get a measure on the state ballot in opposition to health care reform; boost right-wing turnout; and expect those voters to support GOP candidates while they're at the polls. We saw a similar strategy play out in 2004 with far-right activists getting measures on the ballot to prevent marriage equality. Assuming that Republican voters hate the Affordable Care Act at least as much as gays, there's an effort underway to repeat the model in a variety of states. One party official conceded, "What we're trying to do is give voters an added reason to show up to the polls." In Florida, the GOP-led state legislature did just that. Yesterday, a state judge threw the scheme out.
Imagine that -- right-wing Republicans making "manifestly misleading" claims about health care policy. Who would have imagined? Of course, it's a cynical exercise anyway, since state measures, even those approved by voters, can't trump federal law. But the point had nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with Republicans' get-out-the-vote efforts. While the issue in Florida is being appealed, identical efforts are continuing elsewhere. Ben Armbruster noted, "[N]ext Tuesday, Missouri voters will vote on a similar measure challenging the health insurance mandate Congress passed with the reform bill last year. The proposal 'would prohibit governments from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for paying health bills entirely with their own money.'" —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
AND THEN THERE WERE TWO.... Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics charges are obviously generating a lot of attention, but the issue will likely become even bigger if there are two long-time House members facing allegations at the same time.
In the meantime, there are now eight House Democrats calling on Rangel to resign. They were bolstered, at least indirectly, when President Obama told CBS's Harry Smith yesterday, "I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served -- his constituents very well but these -- allegations are very troubling.... He's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens." By all accounts, the president's comments didn't change matters for Rangel, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus were reportedly annoyed by Obama's criticism -- not because Rangel is innocent of the ethics allegations, but because Rangel "served our nation with honor and distinction for more than four decades, before ... the president was a twinkle in his parents' eye." As for the charges themselves, a investigative subcommittee of the House ethics panel that oversaw the two-year probe into Rangel's alleged wrongdoing recommended that the New York Dem "be punished with a reprimand, rather than a more serious censure or expulsion from office," a recommendation that may carry "significant weight with the full 10-member House ethics committee." While the Rangel and Waters allegations will no doubt be welcome news to Republicans, who'd love to exploit the ethics controversies for electoral gain, the GOP should probably be reminded of the dangers of throwing stones in glass houses. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
TAKING A CUE FROM ABE SIMPSON.... Way back in the sixth season of "The Simpsons," Springfield Mayor Joe Quimby was telling a group of seniors about a new highway, explaining that it would "bring increased commerce to our local merchants." Grandpa Simpson was unimpressed, asking, "What's in it for us?" Jasper added, "Yeah, give us something we like or we'll ride you out of town on a rail!" The mayor, flustered, replied, "Well, uh, what do you people like?" Grandpa Simpson eventually says, "Maaatloock!" Quimby acts quickly, and declares, "Well, I suppose I could name it ... the Matlock Expressway." And with that, the seniors are happy. This occurred to me when I saw the latest ad from the Obama administration related to health care policy. There's ample polling that suggests there are generational differences in how Americans perceive the Affordable Care Act -- and seniors' attitudes are easily the most negative. Given that the right went to great lengths to try to terrify the elderly with ridiculous lies, the polls aren't especially surprising. So, the administration created a new spot starring ... Andy Griffith. The actor who played Matlock talks up the new law, telling a targeted audience, "With the new health care law, more good things are coming -- free checkups, lower prescription costs and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud.... I think you're going to like it." The 30-second ad went live yesterday, and will air on four national cable networks: CNN, Weather Channel, Lifetime, and Hallmark. If this doesn't help address seniors' concerns, I might recommend labeling the new law Matlock's Affordable Care Act. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
HALF NELSON.... Yesterday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire announced his support for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, bringing the total number of Republicans backing confirmation to five (and counting). For Democrats who might be looking for bipartisan cover, there's plenty here. But for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), it's apparently not good enough.
Yes, let's all marvel at Nelson's graciousness. This is all rather hard to believe. It seems unlikely Nelson's office lines have been burning up with anti-Kagan calls, and even if the senator has heard from some constituents on this, he should probably realize that organized right-wing activists aren't going to vote for him anyway, so there's no real point trying to impress them. But note the specific rationale -- Nelson's heard from opponents of the Kagan nomination, which he's struggled with because of her inexperience as a judge. I'm not even sure what this means, exactly. He would "discount" far-right complaints if Kagan had been a judge? What does one have to do with the other? For the record, the "lack of a judicial record" canard is still weak.
The Kagan confirmation vote will likely occur on Tuesday. Whether Nelson will switch parties won't be clear until January. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
July 30, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Afghanistan: "Three U.S. troops died in blasts in Afghanistan, bringing the death toll for July to at least 63 and surpassing the previous month's record as the deadliest for American forces in the nearly 9-year-old war." * The Bush Recession was even worse than we realized: "The worst U.S. recession since the 1930s was even deeper than previously estimated, reflecting bigger slumps in consumer spending and housing, according to revised figures." * Federal court judge Susan Bolton, recommended for the bench by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), blocked the implementation yesterday of several provisions of Arizona's anti-immigrant bill. Now, she's facing death threats. * Rangel's reprimand? "The subcommittee that investigated Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has recommended that the embattled lawmaker face just a 'reprimand,' a mild form of punishment similar to that given to Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) when he was rebuked in 1997." * Keep standing up for yourself, EPA. * Happy Anniversary, Medicare. Here's hoping the next Congress doesn't try to subject you to a death panel. * Something to keep an eye on: "The world's first authorized test in people of a treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells has been cleared to begin by the Food and Drug Administration. The trial will test cells developed by Geron Corporation and the University of California, Irvine in patients with new spinal cord injuries." * Unacceptable: "Someone accused of killing a white person in North Carolina is nearly three times as likely to get the death penalty than someone accused of killing a black person, according to a study released Thursday by two researchers who looked at death sentences over a 28-year period." * Rumor has it that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is one of the sharper members of the House Republican caucus, but when one considers his actual ideas, Ryan is still "stone-cold ignorant." * Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) will vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. He's the fifth Republican senator to announce his support for the nomination. * Even Robert Kagan, a bona fide neocon, supports ratification of New START. It just needs eight Republicans. * Newt Gingrich is deeply confused, but so is his spokesperson. * The GAO offers more support for those who believe there's money to be saved in the Pentagon budget. * Sorry to see True/Slant close its virtual doors. * There are no credible defenses for crack/powder sentencing disparities, but Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) gives it a shot (and fails miserably). * Fixing California's higher education problems is harder than it looks. * If it never occurred to you to connect "The Simpsons" to Weather Underground and '60s-era radicalism, then you're probably not watching Glenn Beck. * And Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner continues to make a name for himself, this week suggesting it's time for Arizona to consider secession. He seems quite serious about it. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
A TEST FOR THE SENATE GOP 'MODERATES'.... It's been pretty unpleasant watching the Senate lately. The DISCLOSE Act came up, and every single Senate Republican joined together to block the bill from even getting a vote. A package of incentives and tax breaks for small businesses looked to be in good shape, but every single Senate Republican joined together to knock that down, too. Twenty obviously qualified judicial nominees were brought forward, and the GOP blocked votes on all of them. Medical care for 9/11 victims came up, and Republicans prevented it from passing, too. And these are just developments since Tuesday. But early next week, the chamber will have another important opportunity to pass a critical piece of legislation. Annie Lowrey reported:
Paying for this through food stamp offsets is rough, but it may not quite as bad as it appears. A source close to the talks told me this afternoon that the $6.7 billion from SNAP won't go into effect until 2014 and the money comes from an increase that came through the Recovery Act. For Democrats, it seems like a reasonable trade-off -- they get to save a lot of jobs and bolster Medicaid in the short term, while having three years to replenish the extra funds for food stamps. But what about for Republicans? What kind of resistance should Democrats expect when this comes up on Monday night? I don't doubt they'll come up with something, but Republicans -- especially Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- really don't have any excuses here. This bill will help states, save jobs, and improve the economy ... without adding a penny to the deficit. On Monday, Snowe and Collins specifically endorsed a Medicaid funding extension, but said they didn't want to vote for a bill that wasn't paid for. Well, this bill is paid for. Collins said the job-saving state aid should phase down over time. Well, to accomodate her concerns, this bill does exactly that. So, Republican moderates, what's it going to be? Are you willing to take "yes" for an answer? —Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
SPARE US THE ETHICS LECTURE, FRED.... Last week, Republican pundit Fred Barnes did his very best to pretend to be outraged about the existence of Journolist -- the former listserv featuring left-of-center media professionals, scholars, and wonks (including, for the record, me). "If there's a team, no one has asked me to join," Barnes said in a Wall Street Journal piece. "As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team." Barnes added that he's pained by the betrayal of "traditional journalism." The layers of misjudgment are numerous, especially coming from a shamelessly partisan Fox News contributor publishing an item on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. But Joe Conason takes this further, and notes that Barnes is very much part of "a team," which is evident every time Barnes helps Republican fundraising efforts and accepts tens of thousands of dollars from GOP organizations.
Tell us again, Fred, about your unwavering commitment to the standards of "traditional journalism," and your independence from any "team." And while you're at it, Fred, tell us how an online discussion group with media professionals is more offensive than your Republican fundraising efforts. —Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
ADL'S MOST MISGUIDED MOMENT.... When I heard that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had issued a statement on the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, I was relieved. Finally, I thought, a sensible, credible voice committed to combating bigotry and prejudice could remind the right-wing about the importance of respect, freedom, and how there are no second-class faith traditions here in the United States. And then I read the statement, and my relief disappeared. The ADL's statement started off really well. It reiterated its commitment to religious liberty, "categorically" rejected the "appeals to bigotry," and condemned those "whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry." But then the ADL went badly off course.
What? That doesn't make any sense. The right manufactures a controversy, motivated by nothing but bigotry, so the facility should be built elsewhere? Why, to reward the bigots? And how many blocks away would be necessary to satisfy these demands?
This is genuinely incoherent, and a statement I suspect the ADL will one day look back on with regret and embarrassment. What the Anti-Defamation League is arguing is that the sensitivities of bigots are more important than the religious liberty of American Muslims. The ADL believes faith communities should be free to build buildings, unless it might bother those who hate those faith communities. The ADL seems to acknowledge and fully appreciate the fact that opponents of the Cordoba House are motivated by bigotry, but inexplicably calls for the accommodation of that bigotry.
—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)
APPROPRIATELY NAMED BROTHERS.... It's almost enough to make me believe in karma.
And who are the Wyly brothers? You may not recognize their names right away, but you no doubt know their friends -- the Wylys have given more than just about everyone else to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), and former House Republican leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), in addition to generous support for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R). The Wyly brothers were also "substantial contributors" to the Swiftboat liars who smeared Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) military service in the 2004 presidential race. Perhaps my favorite story involving the Wylys and politics relates to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In 2000, the Wyly brothers created a front group called Republicans for Clean Air, whose sole purpose was to attack McCain in order to help then-Gov. George W. Bush's presidential campaign. McCain accused the Wyly brothers of being corrupt, and having spent "dirty money" to "hijack" a presidential election. McCain even filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law. Six years later, McCain changed his mind, and begged the brothers for campaign donations. And now these two find themselves with a serious SEC problem. What goes around comes around, I guess. For the record, I think it's a mistake to condemn politicians for the actions of those who've raised money for them. Officials and candidates can hardly be expected to keep up on the shenanigans of every high-dollar donor, bundler, and financier, so I'm not suggesting these Republican candidates did something wrong by taking the Wylys' money (though in McCain's case, it was rather ridiculous). I'm just saying, in light of their efforts, it's kind of nice to see the Wyly brothers run into some trouble. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In Florida's closely-watched Senate race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Charlie Crist (I) still out in front, enjoying 37% support, followed by Marco Rubio (R) at 32%, and Jeff Greene (D) third with 17%. With Rep. Kendrick Meek as the Democratic nominee, Crist's and Rubio's numbers are a little higher, but the margins are about the same. * On a related note, Quinnipiac also polled Florida's open gubernatorial race, and found an even more competitive contest. With Rick Scott as the GOP nominee, he leads with 29%, just two points ahead of state CFO Alex Sink (D) at 27%, and Bud Chiles (I) with 14%. If Bill McCollum wins the Republican primary, he's ahead 27% to 26% over Sink. * In Nevada, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R) by just one point, 43% to 42%. The last Mason-Dixon poll showed Reid with a larger lead. * Speaking of Reid, Kentucky Senate hopeful Jack Conway (D) has been under pressure from right-wing candidate Rand Paul (R) about whether he'd support Reid for Majority Leader if elected. This week, pressed on the issue, Conway hedged, suggesting Reid might still lose his re-election bid. * We're just days away from Michigan's GOP gubernatorial primary, and a new EPIC/MRA poll shows a very competitive three-way contest. Rick Snyder is ahead in the poll with 26% support, followed by Mike Cox at 24%, and Pete Hoekstra at 23%. Among Democrats, Virg Bernero leads Andy Dillon by eight, 40% to 32%. * If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R) is leading Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in Wisconsin, 48% to 46%. * In Nevada, Rasmussen shows Brian Sandoval (R) leading the gubernatorial race over Rory Reid (D), but Sandoval's lead is down to 10 points, and the poll was taken before Sandoval's controversial comments about Arizona's anti-immigrant policy. * In Pennsylvania, Rasmussen shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Rep. Joe Sestak (D) by six, 45% to 39%. * And in the state of Washington, Rasmussen shows Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading GOP frontrunner Dino Rossi by two, 49% to 47%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
IF SESSIONS WANTS TO COMPARE, WE CAN COMPARE.... Yesterday, Senate Democrats tried to win confirmation for 20 pending judicial nominees, nearly all of whom enjoyed bipartisan support at the committee level, and all of whom have run into needless Republican obstructionism. How many of the 20 were approved yesterday? None -- Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) blocked all of them. "President Obama's nominees are moving considerably faster ... than President Bush's nominees," the right-wing Alabaman said on the floor. Senate Dems put together this fact-checking video, which makes plain that Sessions either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately trying to deceive, hoping those listening don't know the difference between fact and fiction. The White House has faced some criticism, much of it deserved, for not being more aggressive in sending judicial nominees for consideration. But it's certainly not the administration's fault that the Senate confirmation process is effectively broken, with Republicans using filibusters and holds to block votes on qualified would-be jurists. The Center for American Progress released a report this morning, and the results are both striking and irrefutable. Even district court nominees, whose confirmations used to be routine, are being blocked in record numbers, thanks to Republican tactics that have never even been tried in the Senate. From the report: "Such tactics are completely unprecedented, and so are their results. Fewer than 43 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have so far been confirmed, while past presidents have enjoyed confirmation rates as high as 93 percent. And President Obama's nominees have been confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor -- nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed."  The report added, "It is easy to manipulate the Senate rules to create a crisis. If a minority of senators broadly object to the Senate's entire agenda, then it is literally impossible to confirm more than a fraction of the hundreds of judges, executive branch officials, ambassadors, and other nominees that each president has a responsibility to appoint, even if the Senate shuts down all other legislative business to do so." This political paralysis is unsustainable, and it's going to get even worse if the Senate Republican caucus grows in the next Congress, as seems extremely likely. It's ridiculous to think of a judiciary filled with recess appointments, but it may come to that. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
A COMEBACK STORY AMERICANS (EVEN THE GOP) SHOULD LOVE.... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets a lot of things wrong, for a lot of wrong reasons. But of particular interest today was Steven Pearlstein's sweeping rejection of Chamber politics, most notably, how wrong it and its president, Tom Donahue, were about President Obama's rescue of the U.S. auto industry.
It's worth noting that the administration's auto industry bailout not only worked, it exceeded expectations. Just as importantly, it fit comfortably into an existing model -- every time the federal government bails out key national industries, the results are encouraging. A year ago, the Monthly's Phillip Longman argued that "any honest reading of history suggests that the federal government has quite an impressive record of rescuing institutions considered too big to fail." Quite right. When the government bailed out Lockheed in 1971, the company thrived and taxpayers profited. The government bailed out Chrysler in 1980, and saw similar results. The government bailed out the railroad industry, and saw it flourish. In each case, the government spent lots of taxpayer money, used bureaucrats to engineer the revival of an industry, recouped the money, and produced a success story. Conservatives howled in every instance, but as is usually the case, their complaints and dire predictions were wrong. After Obama intervened to rescue auto manufacturers a year ago, the right insisted it was an example of his purported desire to be a communist dictator. A year later, his efforts look pretty smart, and his detractors' apoplexy looks pretty foolish. For that matter, the conservative theme of the year is that government spending is the single most odious phenomenon in the known universe. And yet, it was government spending that prevented a depression, and it was government spending that rescued the American auto industry. When the president takes a victory lap (so to speak) at a GM plant this morning, it will be well deserved. We can all be very thankful Obama didn't listen to conservatives, that there wasn't a conservative in the Oval Office, and that this industry was spared a looming catastrophe. —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
A DEMOCRAT'S ETHICS PROBE VS. A REPUBLICAN'S CRIMINAL PROBE.... If the accounts from major media outlets are any indication, the political world is awfully excited about the ethics allegations against Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). To be sure, the interest is warranted -- the allegations against the former Ways and Means Committee chairman are serious; Republicans are thrilled; and the controversy has literally become front-page, above-the-fold news. There may be some rule that I'm not aware of, prohibiting coverage of Republican scandals, but while a House Democrat's ethics problems intensify, a sitting Republican senator is still the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation, which is also getting more serious.
Politico added that the move, which nearly every major outlet ignored, "is the latest sign that the investigation ... continues to move swiftly." This development comes just a week after Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a former Ensign housemate, announced that he'd agreed to cooperate with the federal criminal investigation surrounding the conservative Nevadan. Coburn turned over more than 1,200 pages of documents to the Justice Department, including emails from Ensign. And that development came on the heels of news that Ensign's aides have told investigators that the senator knew he was violating ethics rules on lobbying restrictions, but did it anyway. As a rule, when a high-profile U.S. senator is facing a criminal investigation, the media shows at least some interest. When that investigation involves sex, the media tends to show quite a bit of interest. But for reasons I still can't explain the Republican Nevadan is getting a pass. Here we have John Ensign, a "family values" conservative Republican, who had an extra-marital sexual relationship with his friend's wife, while condemning others' moral failings. Ensign's parents offered to pay hush-money. He ignored ethics laws and tried to use his office to arrange lobbying jobs for his mistress' husband. The likelihood of Ensign being indicted seems fairly high. And yet, there's no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign's home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace. Instead, the media's fascinated with Charlie Rangel. Rangel is facing a probe from the House ethics committee, while Ensign is under scrutiny from the FBI. Is this just the IOKIYAR rule taken to the extreme? Was there some kind of memo stating that only Democratic scandals deserve media attention in an election year? —Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
ECONOMY STILL GROWING, BUT NOT VERY WELL.... The good news is, the economy is still growing, and has grown for four consecutive quarters for the first time in three years. The bad news is, the growth in the most recent quarter -- April through June -- was weak and far short of what the country needs.
Economic forecasters were expecting that the GDP would grow in the second quarter at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent, so the results are largely in line with expectations, but that doesn't change the fact that such sluggish growth isn't enough. It's cold comfort, but it's worth noting that first quarter growth was revised upwards quite a bit. A month ago, growth from January to March was estimated at 2.7, but the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning put the number at 3.7. In the bigger picture, it's tempting to think weak growth like this would encourage policymakers to act, but all evidence suggests that's impossible. Republicans in Congress oppose any and all stimulus efforts, and won't let Democrats vote on any additional recovery initiatives. The GOP will, however, fight with everything they've got for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, which we've already seen fail as a measure of generating economic growth. And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter since the Great Recession began in late 2007.
HOUSE GOP KILLS MEDICAL FUNDING FOR 9/11 VICTIMS.... Following up on an item from yesterday, it appears Republican reverence for all things related to the 9/11 attacks is officially over.
So, as Republicans see it, we can afford tax breaks for billionaires. But care for 9/11 victims, not so much. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), perhaps best known for his apology to BP after the company's oil spill, "said the rest of the country should not bear the brunt of helping New Yorkers cope with the aftermath of the terror attacks." [Update: To clarify, this is a paraphrase from the New York Daily News, not a direct quote of Barton.] How could House Republicans kill the bill in a majority-rule chamber? As it turns out, Dems brought the measure to the floor as a "suspension bill," because they didn't want the GOP to try to gut the legislation with poison-pill amendments. But this strategy meant the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass. The final vote was 255 to 159 -- far short of the two-thirds threshold -- with 155 Republicans in opposition, many of them saying they would consider supporting the bill, but only if the GOP were allowed to push unrelated amendments intended to embarrass the majority. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose constituents include many directly affected by this legislation, wasn't especially impressed with the Republican argument:
WHAT NOW ON SMALL BUSINESS AID?.... Going into yesterday, hopes were relatively high that the Senate would make progress on a package to aid small businesses, including tax breaks, new incentives, and an attempt to expand credit through a lending program that utilizes local banks. Hopes were dashed when Republicans, throwing a bit of a tantrum over the number of amendments they were allowed to consider, voted unanimously to block the chamber from voting on the bill. There's no real mystery about the partisan gamesmanship on display.
So, the bill with 59 supporters and 41 opponents is at least temporarily stuck. What now? The Senate leadership is moving forward on a separate measure to help states avoid teacher layoffs and cover Medicaid costs (EduJobs and FMAP), but there's still talk that aid for small businesses can survive. At issue are Republican demands that they be able to offer amendments to the small-business package that have nothing to do with small businesses -- including border security and Bush tax cuts. They don't really expect the amendments to pass, but GOP leaders hope (a) that the votes put Dems in an awkward spot; and (b) the process of considering them will take up more floor time, and make it impossible to consider other legislation this year. As it currently stands, after yesterday's nonsense, the earliest the Senate would approve the small-business package is September. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who's taken the lead on this bill, noted that for struggling businesses, that's not nearly soon enough. Republicans, in effect, replied that the number of amendments they'd be allowed to consider was more important than whether those businesses might fail. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
July 29, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * In Battle Creek, Michigan, federal regulators told Enbridge Energy Partners, a Canadian company, that its "monitoring of corrosion in the pipeline was insufficient." That pipeline has now spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into a major river in southern Michigan. * Manhunt ends on the outskirts of Kabul: "The second U.S. sailor who went missing in eastern Afghanistan last week has been found dead and his body recovered." * Despite some talk earlier today of a possible settlement, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is now facing 13 charges of House rules violations. * This afternoon, President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order Act, giving tribes the right and resources to "investigate and prosecute rapes perpetrated by non-Natives on tribal lands." * Is it really that hard to get a warrant? "The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation." * The president maps out a defense of his education reform agenda. * Better, but still too high: "The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance fell to 457,000 last week, a figure that signals the labor market will be slow to improve even as the economy grows." * Citigroup settles with the Securities and Exchange Commission. * Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want a hearing on the New Black Panther Party. They're not going to get one. * And the media rejoices: Shirley Sherrod intends to sue right-wing hatchet-man Andrew Breitbart. * Congress is considering lifting a ban on Internet gambling, originally imposed by Republicans in 2006. * Jonathan Cohn considers the "stupidity of liberal apathy." * Brendan Nyhan considers the persistence of the death panels myth. * Michelle Cottle watches Obama on "The View" so I don't have to. * If there's one thing the right-wing loves, it's selective editing. * And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) reminds us why he's definitely a #1 seed in the brackets for Most Conspicuously Unintelligent House Member contest. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
SCHLAFLY DOES IT AGAIN.... In Michigan's 9th congressional district, Republicans hope to take down freshman Rep. Gary Peters (D) in what has historically been a relatively "red" area. One of the leading GOP candidates is Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, who apparently thought it'd be a good idea to prove his right-wing bona fides by campaigning with Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the far-right Eagle Forum. What could possibly go wrong? Well, for one thing, Schlafly could start sharing some of her radical beliefs in public. (via Melissa McEwan)
Schlafly went on to note that President Obama was elected thanks to support from "the blacks," before lamenting all the babies born "illegitimately" in the U.S. The Obama administration, she added, "wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes." As for comment, Raczkowski said Schlafly's remarks did not "reflect" his "personal beliefs." How big of him. Raczkowski has not yet apologized, however, for bringing his unhinged special guest to the area to spew her crazy nonsense. It hasn't been a good year for Republicans and women's issues -- see Vitter, David among others -- but the ugliness and misogyny on display in Michigan are a reminder that matters might yet get worse. Update: There are 75 Republican congressional candidates running this year who enjoy the Eagle Forum's endorsement, financial support, or both. One wonders whether they're comfortable with Schlafly's comments -- and her campaign contribution. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
THE 'LET THEM EAT WANT ADS' CAUCUS.... Some GOP officials continue to push the line that both parties support expanded unemployment benefits; they just differ on how (and whether) to pay for them. As the argument goes, Dems see jobless aid as an emergency, while Republicans didn't want the costs added to the deficit. But don't worry -- everyone just loves to look out for the unemployed. This really is nonsense. Greg Sargent has labeled the conservative Republicans with ideological opposition to jobless aid as the "Let Them Eat Want Ads" Caucus, and it's a contingent that keeps growing. Here's Oregon congressional candidate Scott Bruun (R), explaining why he would have voted against the extension:
I don't know what that means, exactly, but Brunn went on to say unemployment benefits may be "encouraging people to stay out of the workplace longer." This comes the same day as Delaware congressional candidate Michele Rollins (R) insisting that helping struggling families get by after a job loss encourages the unemployed to "do nothing for a very long time." I'm probably missing some, but it seems like the "Let Them Eat Want Ads" Caucus is getting to be pretty big. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) dismissed jobless aid as money that offers "a disincentive" to getting a job, a sentiment endorsed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R). Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) compared the unemployed to "hobos"; Nevada's Sharron Angle blasted the unemployed as "spoiled"; Wisconsin's Ron Johnson said those without jobs won't look until their benefits run out; Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett said the unemployed choose not to work because of the benefits; and Kentucky's Rand Paul thinks it's time to cut off aid, whether it's paid for or not, because, "In Europe, they give about a year of unemployment. We're up to two years now in America." GOP media personality Ben Stein went so far as to characterize those out of work as having "poor work habits and poor personalities." The moral of the story seems to be that conservative Republicans just don't seem to like the unemployed. 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.
LINDSEY GRAHAM'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.... Remember, as far as much of the media is concerned, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a reasonable, pragmatic Republican, with whom Democrats should have no trouble finding common ground.
In fairness, Graham didn't come right out and demand an amendment, but he told Fox News he's close. "I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here," Graham told Greta Van Susteren. "Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen." Asked if he'll seriously pursue this, Graham said, "I got to." He added that the 14th Amendment "attracts people here for all the wrong reasons," with pregnant women from other countries coming to the U.S. "to drop a child." Maybe Graham is trying to repair his reputation with the hysterical right; maybe he actually believes this stuff. Either way, trying to address immigration policy through a constitutional amendment is pretty crazy. Jamelle Bouie's take was spot on:
It won't, of course, but it should. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)
SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK BILL SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESSES.... It seems like the kind of bill that should pass pretty easily. As the job market continues to struggle, Democrats have proposed a package to aid small businesses, including tax breaks, new incentives, and an attempt to expand credit through a lending program that utilizes local banks. Today on the Senate floor, it had 59 supporters and 41 opponents, which means it failed, and the entire effort is in jeopardy.
(For the record, the final vote was technically 58-42, but only because Reid had to switch his vote for procedural reasons. Every member of the Democratic caucus opposed the GOP filibuster, and every Republican voted to kill the bill.) In a display that can best be described as insane, Senate Republicans demanded all week that the chamber act on the small-business-incentives measure, and not waste time with measures like campaign-finance reform. But this morning, when the small-business package was ready to move, Republicans balked. To hear them tell it, GOP senators aren't against helping small businesses -- at least not explicitly -- but they're filibustering to get more time for more votes on more amendments to the bill. In other words, Republicans have gone from complaining about the bill not coming up sooner to trying to drag out the process out. So, the good news is the bill isn't dead, at least not yet. The bad news is, Republican senators are acting like spoiled children, in the hopes of eating up valuable pre-recess calendar time, making it impossible for the Senate to do anything else with its limited schedule. The energy bill is in trouble anyway, but by playing games with small businesses, making any progress on energy is looking even less likely. What a ridiculous mess. —Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Brian Sandoval, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Nevada, was asked by Univision if he was at all worried about what might happen to his kids if they visit Arizona. The question was in reference to Arizona's anti-immigrant law. Sandoval, Nevada's first Hispanic federal judge, said he wasn't worried -- because his kids don't look Hispanic. Sandoval later denied (twice) making the comment, but reporter Jon Ralston has this item:
What is it about Nevada Republicans and bizarre remarks this year? I haven't seen the tape, and maybe there's some exculpatory context I'm not aware of. But if the reports are accurate, it's a pretty awful comment. What does Sandoval think should happen to children in Arizona who do "look Hispanic"? —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
BIDEN LAMENTS 'BUSH RECESSION'.... Vice President Biden appeared on NBC's "Today" show earlier, and used a line I don't recall leading White House officials using before, at least not lately. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Ann Curry noted that the administration has been blamed for high unemployment rates, and asked, "Has this administration done enough?" Biden replied, "Let me put it this way: there's never enough until we restore the 8 million jobs lost in the Bush Recession. Until that happens, it doesn't matter. I mean, it matters, but it's not enough." Asked about his message to struggling families, the V.P. added, "My message is, keep the faith. We are moving in the right direction. We are not going to let you go without food or basic services. That will not happen in this country, in our administration. And secondly, we're creating new jobs that are going to be the kind you can raise your family on." Maybe I've missed it, but the line about the "Bush Recession" struck me as new. Biden said it casually, as if it were common, but it's generally been a phrase Democrats have avoided. Here's hoping it's the start of a new rhetorical emphasis. After all, Republicans have been candid about their desire to go back to the "exact same agenda" Bush/Cheney used to get us into this mess in the first place. It is curious, though, why the White House didn't embrace this sooner. Maybe the line took on new urgency when Republicans started talking up their intentions to return to Bush-era policies more earnestly, but it seems overdue. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
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. * In Nevada, Rasmussen has shown Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R), but closing the gap. In its newest poll, Rasmussen has Reid climbing ahead for the first time, leading 45% to 43%. * On a related note, Angle was asked yesterday about her approach to campaign finance reform. She insisted that the DISCLOSE Act is already law. (It's not.) * The DCCC released a memo yesterday, making the case that the Democratic majority in the House will persevere through the midterms. Nate Silver didn't find it especially persuasive. * A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading fired HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R) by five, 39% to 34%. The same poll also found state Attorney General Jerry Brown leading former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R), 37% to 34%. * In Missouri's closely-watched Senate race, Rasmussen shows Rep. Roy Blunt (R) leading Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), 49% to 43%. The results are largely in line with a Mason-Dixon poll released last week. * In related news, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) endorsed Blunt in Missouri, which drew the ire of Bachmann's Tea Party allies, who don't consider Blunt extreme enough. * In Florida, a new Quinnipiac poll shows challengers surging ahead in their primary contests. Rick Scott now leads state A.G. Bill McCollum in the Republican gubernatorial primary, 43% to 32%, while Jeff Greene leads Rep. Kendrick Meek in the Democratic Senate primary, 33% to 23%. * On a related note, Meek was asked yesterday whether he'd support Greene if his opponent won the primary. Meek was non-committal. * And in another of this year's electoral mysteries, former state Rep. Kevin Calvey was supposed to win the GOP primary in Oklahoma's 5th congressional district fairly easily, and enjoyed the backing of the party and right-wing activist groups. Instead, a camp director named James Lankford, who has never sought political office before, won the primary -- and no one knows how this happened. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
MOUNTAIN-TOP REMOVAL JUST NEEDS SOME REBRANDING.... Most reasonable people should be able to agree that mountain-top removal is an environmentally destructive practice. The idea is to mine for coal by literally blowing the tops off of mountains, which occasionally sends thick sludge into area waterways, poisoning nearby lands. As Brad Johnson noted a while back, "Mountain-top mining has been more accurately described as the 'rape of Appalachia,' as rural communities are destroyed economically and environmentally for coal industry." Rand Paul (R), the extremist U.S. Senate candidate in Kentucky, doesn't quite see it that way. Last year, the right-wing ophthalmologist dismissed concerns, arguing, "I don't think anybody's going to be missing a hill or two here and there." Today, Evan McMorris-Santoro flags remarks Paul made to Details magazine, suggesting mining through mountain-top removal would not only be more popular if it was given a better name, but moreover, is actually a good thing.
As for the destruction associated with the practices, Paul added that legal restrictions on gutting the regional environment are a mistake. "Let's let you decide what to do with your land," he said. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
I FEEL E.J. DIONNE'S PAIN.... The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. has long been a favorite of mine. I don't agree with every word of every piece, but for the most part, Dionne has been an insightful and clever observer for quite a while. But I've noticed of late that Dionne, a pretty level-headed, even-tempered pundit, is getting increasingly frustrated, even agitated. I've noticed this because I can relate to the columnist's exasperation. Today, for example, Dionne asks a question I've asked myself: "Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?" The piece takes note of recent developments that seem to defy all reason -- despite talk of fiscal responsibility, Republicans are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, which they have no intention of paying for. Despite the overwhelming evidence on the efficacy of the stimulus, much of the nation chooses to ignore the facts and resist steps that would improve the economy. Despite the need for the government to be able to respond to challenges, Republicans won't let the Senate function.
Not surprisingly, I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. But the more interesting thing to keep in mind here is that while Dionne laments "incorrigible stupidity" today, he's been embracing this kind of tone more and more. His last column blasted Fox News and "right-wing propaganda." Two weeks ago, he took note of Tea Party racism. A few weeks earlier, he lamented "conservative militancy" and Tea Party "extremism." He's knocked down efforts to equate ideological purges in both parties, and he's taken a leading role in shining a light on conservative judicial activism. To an extent, it's tempting to hope this is evidence of a larger phenomenon. Maybe millions of mild-mannered, center-left patriots are so bewildered by recent political nonsense, they'll turn out in record numbers, feeling exactly the way Dionne does about recent events. Or maybe not. Either way, I can't help but enjoy -- and feel vaguely validated by -- Dionne getting angrier about what he perceives as the absurdities of the status quo. It's an emotion I can relate to. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
A BANNER DAY FOR THE GOP'S CULTURE OF CORRUPTION.... Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama made a name for himself in February, when he held several national security nominees hostage in the Senate, demanding to be paid off in pork. It was the kind of casual corruption of American politics that's been all too common. As it turns out, Shelby may also be caught up with a more pernicious kind of corruption.
It's quite a scheme, isn't it? Shelby's aides become lobbyists ... Shelby directs our money to his former aides' new employers through earmarks ... Shelby then gets campaign contributions from those employers. This comes, by the way, the same day as a report on House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) new fundraising scheme, which effectively sells access to the man the GOP bills as the next Speaker.
The initiative is being organized with the help of several corporate lobbyists "Boehner is close to." And Shelby's and Boehner's schemes come to light just as we see House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) support from Wall Street soar after he helped organize opposition to new financial industry safeguards.
Cantor fights to kill Wall Street accountability, and Wall Street writes a bunch of checks for Cantor. Care to guess who'll be writing the legislation if there's a Republican majority next year? —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
GOP OPPOSES MEDICAL FUNDING FOR 9/11 VICTIMS.... I was under the impression that the emergency teams who responded to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are considered American heroes. The nation's support for these men and women is unequivocal and unending. At least, that was my impression. I guess I underestimated congressional Republicans again.
A policy statement from the House GOP leadership believes a victims' compensation fund is too large, and would remain open too long, which in turn creates a "massive new entitlement program" -- and Republicans hate entitlement programs. As for financing, because the right pretends to care about the deficit, Dems made sure that every penny of the proposal is paid for. This, too, outraged House Republicans, because tax increases, even on foreign companies, even to benefit 9/11 victims, are always evil. We're left with Republicans, in an election year, taking a bold stand against funding for medical care for 9/11 heroes. Amazing. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
DEMS EYE A TEA PARTY WEDGE.... As you may have heard, the Democratic National Committee launched a new message campaign yesterday, called the "Republican-Tea Party Contract With America." The point is probably obvious: Dems intend to remind voters that when it comes to issues, priorities, and agendas, the Republican Party and the Tea Party zealots are effectively "one and the same."
The initiative included the unveiling of a new video, highlighting the kind of specific policy efforts the country can expect from the "Republican-Tea Party Contract." At first, I was a little skeptical about this tack. To be sure, the charge is accurate. My skepticism, though, has to do with public awareness -- do enough Americans even know about Tea Partiers' extremism? Or are we still at a point where Americans hear "Tea Party," and think of Boston colonists in 1773? Presumably, the DNC has extensive polling data on this, which likely shows the American mainstream -- especially self-described "independents" and swing voters -- turned off by Tea Partiers' radicalism. Which leads to the stronger part of the Democrats' plan: it puts Republicans on the defensive. Indeed, yesterday, GOP leaders were quick to denounce, and sometimes even mock, the new Democratic effort. But when reporters asked if the DNC's charges are true -- in other words, whether Republicans and Tea Partiers really are one and the same, with an identical right-wing agenda -- those same GOP leaders suddenly felt shy. An RNC spokesperson "would not say whether the RNC disagrees with any of the 10 agenda items." A wide variety of Republican officials were quick to respond to the DNC's initiative, but not one was prepared to "refute specific points." That's not surprising. When Dems insist Republicans and Tea Partiers are identical, GOP officials can either (a) disagree, and offend their base; or (b) embrace the criticism, and risk turning off everyone else. Looking at the big picture, Dems have struggled to settle on a specific campaign theme. "Party of No" was dubious, in part because Republicans seem to like it. The ideal for the DNC, then, is to figure out how to characterize Republicans as the "party of crazy." Equating them with anti-government zealots and wild-eyed conspiracy cranks might just do the trick. Marc Ambinder explained the strategy this way: "The Republicans want to be mayors of crazy-town. They've embraced a fringe and proto-racist isolationist and ignorant conservative populism that has no solutions for fixing anything and the collective intelligence of a wine flask." —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
A CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM.... At the height of the debate over health care reform, a certain set of political assumptions set in -- the Democratic proposal was unpopular, thanks to a scathing misinformation campaign. Republicans would base much of their midterm strategy on running against the new law, while Democrats hoped to see the law's popularity grow as the right-wing lies faded. We're not yet near the point at which the Affordable Care Act could be characterized as "popular," but Dems are likely pleased with the recent trend.
Since April, the tracking poll has found support for the health care reform law go up four points, while opposition has gone down five points. Less encouraging were results that showed more than a third of seniors still believe made-up "death panels" are real -- zombie lies are surprisingly hard to kill -- but overall, proponents of the ACA who predicted that blind hatred for reform would fade over time appear to be correct. In fairness, not every recent poll offers such encouragement. A recent Pew Forum/National Journal survey (pdf) still showed opponents outnumbering supporters by a fairly wide margin. On the other hand, last month, a national Associated Press-GfK poll found that support for the Affordable Care Act was not only on the rise, but had reached new heights -- health care reform's supporters outnumbered opponents, 45% to 42%. A week later, a Gallup poll found 49% of respondents agreeing that passage of the law is a "good thing," while 46% think it's a "bad thing." The point isn't that all the recent data offers good news for ACA backers; the point is that assumptions that Americans hate the new law are wrong. House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office argued recently that "the American people remain squarely opposed" to health care reform, and pointed to "the rising public backlash against the new law." The evidence to support such observations is still lacking. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
July 28, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * The Beige Book disappoints a bit: "The economic expansion has proceeded unevenly this summer, according to a new Federal Reserve report, with new pockets of weakness emerging in parts of the country." * On a related note: "The latest report on orders to factory for big-ticket items on Wednesday offered another sign that the United States economy was losing strength in the second half the year." * The oil from the disaster in the Gulf "appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected." This does not, however, "end the many problems and scientific uncertainties associated with the spill." * President Obama talks up the Democrats' small-business-incentives bill in New Jersey: "The provisions of this bill are things that the Republican Party has supported for years," Obama said. "This is as American as apple pie. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are central to our identity as a nation.... I expect us to get this done." * U.S. troops continue to return home from Iraq. * Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) announced today she will vote for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation. She's the fourth Senate Republican to announce her support for the nominee. * A worthwhile first for the VA: "The Under Secretary of Health at the Veterans Administration issued a little-noticed directive to VA medical facilities recently, informing facilities that patients who legally use medical marijuana may not be denied access to health services because of their outside prescription." * The sooner the Senate acts, the better: "The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday approved the nomination of three new members to the Federal Reserve's powerful board, including Janet Yellen for vice chairman, clearing the way for a final vote by the whole Senate." * Is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) obsessed with gutting the EPA? Yep. * Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), still mad as a hatter. * Not good: "There's not going to be enough money to fully fund Pell Grants, the government program that provides money to help low-income students to attend college." * Jeffrey Lord just can't bring himself to shut up. * Bill O'Reilly joins the rest of the sensible universe in opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. * Glenn Beck's Goldline scheme, illustrated. * I intended to highlight the pathetic op-ed from Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen in the Wall Street Journal today, but just didn't have the stomach for it. Thankfully, Alex Pareene was on the case. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
SOMEONE BUY THUNE A CALCULATOR.... Politico reported this week that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is trying to "build up his policy credentials," in advance of a possible presidential campaign in 2012. With that in mind, the conservative, unaccomplished senator intends to "make a name for himself on budgetary matters." He's off to a rough start.
Mathematically, no. Let's say the government starts with a $1 trillion budget deficit. If Thune's committee reduces it by 10%, it would be a $900 billion deficit a year later. The next year, it cuts another 10%. Would that bring it down to $800 billion? No, it'd be $810 billion ($900 billion - 10% = $810 billion). A year later it would be $729 billion, followed by $656 billion, and so on. Thune thinks this approach would eliminate the deficit in 10 years, but he forgot to do the math, so he's off by an entire decade*. It's understandable for van Sustern to mess this up -- she's a Fox News personality -- but this is the senator's own plan, intended to give him credibility in advance of a national campaign. Someone couldn't let him borrow a calculator? Arithmetic aside, if Thune's idea is part of a larger effort to "build up his policy credentials," the senator might need a back-up plan. His scheme seems like a pretty thin gimmick -- task some committee with coming up with ideas to reduce the deficit without raising taxes. At that point, Congress would be free to ignore the committee's ideas. The reason it's hard to take Thune's national ambitions seriously is that he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Think back over the last couple of years -- when was the last time you remember Thune saying or doing something noteworthy? There was that time a year ago when he urged President Obama not to pick a gay Supreme Court nominee, which came soon after his argument that economic recovery efforts are bad because $1 trillion, if stacked by $100 bills, would make a very tall pile. When Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) pushed a measure to protect victims of sexual assault who work for defense contractors -- the Jamie Leigh Jones effort -- Thune dismissed it as a "Daily Kos-inspired amendment." Soon after, Thune said a colleague often disagrees with Republicans because he understands policy details. This guy has presidential ambitions? Please. * Update: Brian Beutler emails to note that he had a minor math error of his own, and that Thune was off by far more than a decade. Using Thune's model, it would take 43 years to get deficits down to 1% of current levels, making his observation that much more incorrect. (And as some of you have also noted, if one reduces a debt by 10% a year indefinitely, it's impossible to ever eliminate the total altogether.) —Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
CLOSER TO SENTENCING SANITY.... Sentencing disparities when it comes to cocaine have been a national embarrassment for nearly a quarter-century. We've been dealing with an indefensible 100-to-1 ratio established in 1986 -- a person caught selling five grams of crack will face the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as someone selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. Because the majority of crack convictions involve African Americans, while powder cocaine convictions tend to involve whites, there's also an obvious racial component to the sentencing disparity. The Obama administration strongly endorsed changing the law and ending the disparity altogether. Regrettably, Congress wouldn't oblige. Lawmakers did, however, take a step in the right direction today, making the disparity less ridiculous.
The sentencing disparity has been a 100-to-1 ratio. Now, it will be 18-to-1. The House was prepared to go further, but ending the disparity ran into trouble -- where else? -- in the Senate. As a result, the law will be vastly improved, though the disparity will remain a problem. Let's not, however, brush past how significant this is. The AP noted that the success of the Fair Sentencing Act marks "the first time in 40 years that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence." That, alone, is pretty amazing. For over a generation, a vote like this would have been the subject of shameless "soft on crime" demagoguery. Instead, the Obama White House pressed hard for the change, with no real fear of political pushback, and Congress approved a significant improvement -- in an election year -- with no qualms about how this might be twisted into an attack ad. David Dayen added, "[Y]ou know what we don't so a lot of in this country? Reduce sentences. Check out the makeup of the world's largest prison population and you'll see what I mean. 'Law 'n' Order' and 'Tough on Crime' remain shibboleths used by politicians to hammer away at criminal sentencing reformists. So ANY change in a positive direction takes a ridiculous amount of work and struggle. This is a small step, but it's a step in the right direction." It is, indeed. And the fact that the right isn't running around screaming about "Democrats love drug addicts" this afternoon also reflects meaningful progress when it comes to our public discourse on this issue. Here's some additional background on the details of the bill. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
QUANTIFYING THE GOVERNMENT'S RESCUE OF THE ECONOMY.... In politics, perceptions arguably matter more than anything, and when it comes to the federal government intervening to rescue the economy, the perceptions are less than kind. If polls are any indication, the efforts launched by federal officials in 2008 and 2009, when the economy was teetering on the brink of wholesale collapse, were unacceptable. The financial industry bailout seems to be universally reviled, and last year's Recovery Act is only marginally more popular. (In fact, in many instances, the public thinks both efforts are the same thing.) President Obama and Democrats routinely, if not explicitly, argue to voters that "it would have been worse." But is there way to prove that empirically? Two respected economists gave it a shot.
Zandi, by the way, was an advisor on economic policy to the McCain/Palin presidential campaign. The two looked at the totality of the federal response -- TARP, stimulus, auto industry rescue, intervention from the Federal Reserve -- and concluded that the collected efforts prevented an economic catastrophe. "When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policy makers had not acted at all," they write. The economists didn't measure what would have happened if policymakers had followed the right's recommendations -- no TARP, no auto industry rescue, and a five-year spending freeze -- but the word "cataclysmic" comes to mind. Indeed, the Zandi/Blinder paper concluded, "[I]t is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act. Not responding would have left both the economy and the government's fiscal situation in far graver condition. We conclude that [Federal Reserve Chairman] Ben Bernanke was probably right when he said that "We came very close in October [2008] to Depression 2.0." —Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
ARIZONA ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW PUT ON HOLD.... Today's the day that Arizona's odious S.B. 1070 -- the notorious anti-immigrant law -- takes effect, but thanks to a court order today, the most problematic provisions of the law are now on hold. The Associated Press reports this afternoon:
Until the court resolves the legality of these issues, the provisions will not take effect. Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) will no doubt appeal, and the New York Times noted that "legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court." Update: CNN posted the entire ruling here (pdf). —Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
HALPERIN ON 'THE MEDIA SPIRAL'.... At first blush, Mark Halperin's latest piece in Time deals with subjects I'm not inclined to read more about: O.J. Simpson's criminal trial and the media's handling of the Shirley Sherrod story. But there are actually some noteworthy observations in the piece, with real merit. (via Adam Serwer)
I take issue, from time to time, with Halperin's coverage of the political world, but on this, he couldn't be more right. It's an observation that usually goes overlooked, which makes it all the more encouraging that it's coming from Halperin -- who enjoys enormous credibility with the political media establishment. He concludes that last week's obsession was a "low point" for political reporting, which should lead the media to "start climbing out of the pit." Halperin doesn't explicitly call himself out on this -- The Page was complicit with last week's coverage -- and the piece brushes past the racial component of both stories. Nevertheless, he deserves a lot of credit for making plain how that conveyor belt operates, and highlighting why it's not working. Here's hoping Halperin's piece is taken seriously by his colleagues. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
A POLL TAX FOR A NEW GENERATION.... One of the most amusing aspects of "Fox & Friends" is their habit of phrasing ridiculous points as questions. It's a classic cop-out -- they're not making an insulting point; they're just posing a question for debate. ("Are liberal Democrats more likely to hurt puppies? We're not saying they are; we're just asking a question.") This morning, host/activist Steve Doocy posed a "controversial" question: "With 47% of Americans not paying taxes -- 47% -- should those who don't pay be allowed to vote?" As is always the case, he's not necessarily saying they should be denied the ability to vote; Doocy was just posing a question. Well, it's a stupid question. For one thing, Doocy's simply wrong on the facts. When he expresses amazement that 47% of Americans are "not paying taxes," he's making a deliberately misleading claim. Yes, many middle- and lower-class families get a break on their federal income taxes, but what Doocy neglects to mention is that these same folks still pay sales taxes, state taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and in many instances, property taxes. To suggest, as Doocy does, that 47% are somehow getting away with something is crazy. For another, does Doocy think it's a bad thing that so many Americans get a break on their federal income taxes? As a Republican, wouldn't it be odd for him to support tax increases on nearly half the country? And finally, even if Doocy's bogus claim were accurate -- it's not, but let's say it is for the sake of conversation -- in what universe would we deny Americans the right to vote based on the size of their tax burden? Tune into "Fox & Friends," where you'll get a glimpse of Jim Crow laws for a new generation. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In California, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) building on her earlier lead, and now has a nine-point advantage over fired HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R), 49% to 40%. * On a related note, PPP also found that state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) leads former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) in California's gubernatorial race, but the leading is shrinking. Brown is now up by six, 46% to 40%. * In New York, a new Quinnipiac poll shows state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) continuing to enjoy huge leads in his gubernatorial race, leading former Rep. Rick Lazio (R) by 30 points, 56% to 26%, * Oklahoma will have its first woman governor next year, after yesterday's gubernatorial primaries. Rep. Mary Fallin, as expected, won the Republican nomination, and in a bit of a surprise, Lt. Gov. Jari Askins edged state Attorney General Drew Edmondson for the Democratic nod. * As of this morning, former Rep. Rob Simmons' (R) on-again/off-again Senate campaign in Connecticut is back on again. * If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, Illinois state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) has a narrow lead over Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in this year's Senate race, 43% to 41%. * In an interesting Democratic primary in Tennessee, Rep. Steve Cohen (D), a white lawmaker running for re-election in a majority-African-American district, now enjoys support from the Congressional Black Caucus for the first time. * It almost certainly won't amount to much, but Rep. Mike Castle (R), the leading candidate in Delaware's U.S. Senate race, is facing a primary challenge from Christine O'Donnell. Yesterday, O'Donnell picked up support from the Tea Party Express, which has previously helped right-wing candidates in GOP primaries in Nevada, Kentucky, and Utah. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
LAY OF THE LAND.... The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's estimable Jay Bookman tried to wrap his head around the current political landscape, and felt like he'd fallen down a rabbit hole.
Yep. I'd just add two things. One, congressional Republicans also hope to block a bill to offer economic incentives to small businesses, while blocking all related efforts to improve the economy, including aid to states. Two, they're the party that's expected to do extremely well in November, all of these details notwithstanding. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
THE GOP'S WELL-HIDDEN AFFECTION FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.... A mistaken impression quickly took hold recently during the debate over extended unemployment benefits, and much of the media bought it. The assumption became that everyone on both sides supported the extension, it was simply a debate over how. Dems saw the aid as an emergency, while Republicans didn't want the costs added to the deficit. In effect, the GOP argued, "We're not callous; we love the unemployed. We're anxious to extend benefits. We just want the kind of fiscally responsible approach we cared nothing about when we were in the majority." They're still pushing this line, probably aware of voters' support for the benefits.
This is pretty silly. As Alan Pyke noted, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) dismissed jobless aid as money that offers "a disincentive" to getting a job, a sentiment endorsed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R) . For that matter, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested that if you don't have a job, you might very well be a drug addict. Johanns specifically referenced sitting senators, but if we expand the view a bit, we see even more Republican hostility towards the unemployed. One GOP congressman recently compared the jobless to "hobos." Nevada's Sharron Angle blasted the unemployed as "spoiled"; Wisconsin's Ron Johnson said those without jobs won't look until their benefits run out; Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett said the unemployed choose not to work because of the benefits; and Kentucky's Rand Paul thinks the jobless should just quit their bellyaching and "get back to work." Johanns would have us believe that both parties were looking out for the unemployed, just in different ways. That's nonsense. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
CAN THE DREAM ACT BECOME A REALITY?.... The chances of the Senate taking up a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year are about zero. But there is time, and at least some political will, to tackle smaller measures related to the larger policy.
And part of Plan B is pursuing a measure called the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which is sponsored by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). I'd like to think a bill like this would be a no-brainer. Every year, tens of thousands of young illegal immigrants graduate from American high schools, but are quickly stuck -- they can't qualify for college aid, and they can't work legally. America is the only home they've ever known -- in most cases, they were brought into the country illegally by their parents -- but at 18, they have few options. The DREAM Act provides a path to citizenship for these young immigrants -- graduate from high school, get conditional permanent residency status, go to college or serve in the military, and become eligible for citizenship. The road ahead for the measure is tricky. On the right, Senate Republicans have predictably vowed to filibuster the measure. On the left, there are concerns that passing the DREAM Act might make passing a comprehensive bill more difficult. For now, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) seems serious about trying to get it to the floor before the elections. In theory, getting enough Republican votes to overcome a filibuster shouldn't be difficult. Not only is Lugar co-sponsoring the bill, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) helped write the policy a few years ago. Better yet, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), before his transformation into a right-wing hack, not only endorsed the DREAM Act, he offered congressional testimony in support of the idea, and promised the National Council of La Raza two years ago that he would support the bill if elected president. To be sure, consistency isn't their best quality, but conservative Republicans have been on board with the DREAM Act for years. If just a few of them would let the Senate vote, up or down, on the bill, it stands a chance. Update: As recently as April, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he was open to working on immigration reform. Today, commenting on the bipartisan DREAM Act, Cornyn said Dems are just trying to "play to the peanut gallery." I sure hope he's not referring to those kids who need a hand. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
PREFERRING POLITICAL PARALYSIS.... If there's one thing that should be overwhelmingly obvious after the last four years, it's that the Senate process is broken. Obstructionist tactics that were once rare have been scandalously routine -- for the first time in American history, a Senate supermajority is necessary for literally every bill of consequence. The result is a legislative paralysis that undermines America's ability to thrive in the 21st century. Except, it's apparently not obvious to all.
Most of the support in the Senate for reforming the broken status quo comes from newer members of the chamber, but it's the Dems who've been around for a while -- those who remember being in the minority -- who are most inclined to keep things as they are, regardless of the consequences to the institution or the country. It's a reminder that no one wants to give up a weapon they might want to use themselves someday. Republicans are abusing procedural rules now to undermine a progressive agenda, and some Dems are no doubt thinking they'll be able to abuse those same rules down the road. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) told The Hill, "I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.... I think it has been working." I don't know what Senate Akaka has been watching, but it doesn't sound like this one. With the Senate Democratic majority due to shrink, and Republicans becoming more hysterically conservative, these anti-reform Dems are inviting a disaster -- a government incapable of passing legislation. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
DEBATING DISCLOSURE.... I suppose what rankles most about Senate Republicans killing the DISCLOSE Act yesterday is just how modest the legislation really was. For about a century, the country has prohibited corporations from sponsoring campaign ads. The Supreme Court concluded that such restrictions infringe on the First Amendment, so a majority of Congress decided, in lieu of a ban, to pursue disclosure. Corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations would have to tell voters that they're sponsoring their ads, and in some cases, divulge their donors. It's hardly unreasonable -- corporations can run their ads, but for the sake of the democratic process, everything should be out in the open for the public. Every single Republican in the Senate disagreed, largely without explanation. Indeed, yesterday's GOP filibuster wasn't on the bill, it was on the motion to proceed -- every Senate Republican not only took a bold stand against basic campaign disclosure, they blocked the Senate from even having a debate. They're against disclosure and against talking about disclosure. With that in mind, a quote collection was making the rounds on the Hill yesterday. The highlights included: * Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) "believes that it is important that any future campaign finance laws include strong transparency provisions so the American public knows who is contributing to a candidate's campaign, as well as who is funding communications in support of or in opposition to a political candidate or issue." * Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): "I think the system needs more transparency, so people can more easily reach their own conclusions." * Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.): "I don't like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable... To the extent we can, I tend to favor disclosure." All of them filibustered a measure to start a debate over a modest disclosure bill. Jamelle Bouie added:
If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
CONGRESS OVERCOMES OPPOSITION, APPROVES WAR FUNDING.... The House approved a spending bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but included $23 billion in additional domestic funding -- including $10 billion in aid to states, intended to save thousands of teachers' jobs. The Senate rejected that version, passed a stripped-down $59 billion package that funded the wars and nothing else, and offered the House a take-it-or-leave-it message Late yesterday, the House took it, but it wasn't easy. In particular, many liberal Dems had plenty of reasons to balk -- opposition to the wars, dissatisfaction over the scrubbed domestic spending, and revelations surrounding the WikiLeaks materials -- and opposed the spending measure in fairly large numbers.
Here's the roll call. A majority of Dems and a majority of Republicans supported the funding, but 102 Democrats joined 12 Republicans in opposition. The number of House Dems voting against the midyear war spending nearly tripled from a year ago, which underscores the growing opposition. It's also worth keeping in mind that the $59 billion for the wars isn't paid for, and will be added to the deficit as emergency spending. There was some talk among Republicans in May about trying to pay for the funding -- a step they never even considered between 2002 and 2008 -- but that was never seriously pursued. With that in mind, reader M.R. raised a good point via email:
That strikes me as a very sound approach. Wars are expensive, and throughout American history, taxes have gone up to pay for conflicts. Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War. McKinley raised taxes to finance the Spanish-American War. Wilson raised the top income tax rate to 77% to afford WWI. Taxes were raised, multiple times, to help the nation pay for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Even the first President Bush raised taxes after the first war with Iraq. This year, taxes are scheduled to return to earlier levels anyway. If Dems let that happen, they can help pay for the war spending Republicans support. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
July 27, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Changes at BP: "Three months after its giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a chastened BP outlined a new strategy on Tuesday to revamp operations and practices around the world and turn it into a leaner operator under a new leader. But even as BP increased the money set aside for spill-related costs to $32.2 billion, executives reiterated that the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion was not a result of gross negligence by the company." * On a related note, BP's Tony Hayward is leaving with a severance package that congressional Democrats aren't at all happy about. * If only a couple of Senate Republicans cared: "Worldwide, 2010 is on track to become the warmest year on record. Scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies reported recently that the average global temperature was higher over the past 12 months than during any other 12-month period in history." * What happened to the billions of dollars in the Iraq reconstruction fund between 2003 and 2007? No one seems to know. * It's obscure, at least for now, but we should care about Basel III. * Will Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) cut a deal with the ethics committee? It's looking a lot less likely. * Volt gets a price tag: "The Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in car capable of driving about 40 miles at a time on battery power without using any gasoline, will have a sticker price of $41,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, General Motors said Tuesday. G.M. will also lease the Volt for $350 a month in the hopes of attracting consumers who want lower monthly payments or would hesitate to buy the vehicle until they are more comfortable with its technology." * FEC raises eyebrows: "The starter's gun went off last week in the squalid new race for unlimited campaign cash. The Federal Election Commission approved the creation of two 'independent' campaign committees, one each from the left and right, expressly designed to take advantage of the new world of no rules." * Good piece on the aims and standards of conservative media. * On a related note, conservatives won't want to hear this, but Journolist really was a terrific resource. * When public colleges get less funding, but spend more on sports anyway, it seems problematic. * And Dave Weigel lands on his feet, joining the staff at Slate. All's well that ends well? Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
OBAMA TALKS SMALL BUSINESSES, ENERGY, WIKILEAKS, JUDGES.... President Obama met this afternoon with the congressional leadership from both parties and both chambers today, and spoke afterwards about the agenda. He began by endorsing the small-business-incentives bill that, according to the leadership, will be the next bill considered by the Senate, and may be voted on this week. The president transitioned to energy:
I know a comprehensive bill probably won't see the light of day for several years, but it's nevertheless nice to hear a reminder that "our current energy policy is unsustainable," as the BP spill helps demonstrate. (The president has, by the way, been saying this for quite a while. It just hasn't gotten much attention.) As for the Wikileaks story:
And one of my personal favorites, the federal judiciary:
—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
SENATE GOP BLOCKS VOTE, KILLS DISCLOSE ACT.... We learned earlier today that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) would be away from Capitol Hill this afternoon, attending a funeral. At that point, it was all but certain that the DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) would fail today to overcome the latest in an endless line of Republican filibusters. With every member of the Democratic caucus in the chamber, the bill would need one GOP vote. With Lieberman out for the day, it would need two. And when it comes to promoting campaign disclosure from corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations, we saw unanimous Republican opposition to even allowing the Senate to vote. The final roll call this afternoon was 57 to 41. In a sane world, legislation with 57 supporters and 41 opponents would win. In the U.S. Senate, thanks to scandalous Republican abuses, it loses. There's just no logic to the GOP refusing to allow a vote on this. It already passed the House -- with a Republican co-sponsor, no less -- and it's really not that controversial.
Remember when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was a champion of campaign-finance reform? He refused to even let the Senate vote on a simple disclosure bill. Remember when Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) seemed like the kind of "moderates" who would support an effort like this? All three not only opposed the bill, but supported a filibuster to block a vote. Democrats intend to use today's vote in the future as an example of ridiculous Republican values. In expectation of the vote, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said this morning, "Today's vote has the potential to be a defining one for the Republican party. This [is] a choice between the public and big corporations and the Republicans seem poised to vote en masse for the corporations." Update: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), shortly before the vote: "This is a sad day for our democracy. Not only does the Supreme Court give those special interests a huge advantage, but this body says they should do it all in secret without any disclosure. That, my colleagues, transcends this election, transcends Democrat or Republican. It eats at the very fabric of our democracy. It makes our people feel powerless and angry." —Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
NO ONE NOTICES THE CONTRAST OF WHITE ON WHITE.... Fox News viewers have been treated with an overabundance of coverage of "news" about the New Black Panther Party and Shirley Sherrod, who at least initially, the network accused of discriminating against whites. Isn't Fox News concerned about driving away its African-American viewers with such racially-charged coverage? Probably not -- the network just doesn't have many African-American viewers to drive away.
For comparison purposes, note that 20.7% of CNN's viewers are black. For MSNBC, the number is 19.3%. For Fox News, it's just 1.38%. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this isn't likely to change anytime soon.
—Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
SHOWING THE SCOUTS SOME LOVE.... The right gets angry about the strangest things.
On his radio show, Glenn Beck also went after the president over the Boy Scouts' event, which suggests we may be hearing more about this from the usual suspects. There's an obvious response here -- this isn't a snub. The president will address the Boy Scouts' jamboree via a taped message, and he already showed his appreciation for the group by hosting an Oval Office gathering just two weeks ago. But if we're going to talk about politics and scouts, it's worth remembering that Beck and his cohorts are barking up the wrong ideological tree here. Did you ever notice the right's hostility towards the Girl Scouts? A few years ago, James Dobson's Focus on the Family encouraged Christian fundamentalists to steer clear of the Girl Scouts because it made use of the word "God" in its oath optional. Another religious right group complained about the Girl Scouts' emphasis on "empowerment," which Robert Knight argued would "steer" girls "into collective action for liberal causes, such as environmentalism." There was also the hatchet job Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote for National Review, which claimed, among other things, that that the Girl Scouts are under the sway of radical feminists and lesbians. "There are currently 2.7 million Girl Scouts in the U.S.," Lopez said. "That's a lot of liberal feminists to look forward to." And the right wants to complain about Obama sending a pre-recorded message to the Boy Scouts? This is evidence of some kind of scout animosity? Please. —Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
QUIT WHILE YOU'RE BEHIND.... Yesterday, the American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord decided to go after Shirley Sherrod, this time accusing her of lying because she said Bobby Hall was "lynched" in 1943. Hall was beaten to death by a white sheriff and his two white deputies, but as far as Lord was concerned, rope wasn't involved. Ergo, Sherrod's credibility is in question. As Adam Serwer responded yesterday, "A lynching is an extrajudicial mob killing. No one who worked to document the practice of lynching in the South limited the definition of the term to solely include those lynchings that occurred using a rope.... Now does three guys beating someone to death sound like an extrajudicial mob killing to you?" Today, Lord answered that question and defended his offensive argument.
Look, this is ridiculous. Lord wisely gave up on the whole rope line of argument, but now wants to parse the meaning of the word "mob." Three white cops beat a black man to death. They arrested him on weak evidence, beat him mercilessly for a half-hour, and dragged the man's unconscious body, feet first, through the courthouse square before his death. If there were four white cops would Lord be comfortable with the word "lynching"? How about five? Emmett Till was killed by two men. Was he not lynched either? But wait, there's more. Lord went on to suggest that people need to "understand the connection between what they are seeing in the headlines everyday -- and history."
Keep in mind, this is not satire intended to make conservatives look like deranged racists. Lord seems to be entirely sincere. And the whole point of the exercise is to do what Breitbart tried and failed to do last week -- go after Shirley Sherrod. It's quite twisted, really. Postscript: More than a few historians believe Jeffrey Lord has no idea what he's talking about, but I suspect that won't change his mind. We're well past the point at which reason and evidence have meaning with this guy. —Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)
WHEN AN ENDORSEMENT BACKFIRES.... The conventional wisdom suggests Republican candidates, especially those in Republican primaries, are anxious to get an endorsement from former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R). There are, however, exceptions.
To be sure, it's just one poll, so I don't want to overstate matters. But this nevertheless offers some evidence to bolster other recent polls that show a great deal of hostility for the right-wing Alaskan from everyone who isn't part of the far-right Republican base. In the case of the PPP survey, it's pretty dramatic -- Ayotte was faring well among moderate voters, and now she's not. The only thing that's changed of late is the endorsement, which New Hampshire Democrats were anxious to tout among in-state reporters. Indeed, there's a great irony here. For quite a while, Granite State Dems were anxious to tie Ayotte to Palin, noting the similarities between them (most notably, the fact that both quit their jobs, mid-term, to pursue grander ambitions). The charges didn't really connect in New Hampshire -- until Ayotte went ahead and accepted an endorsement from the conspicuously unintelligent Fox News personality. Overall, Ayotte's lead over Rep. Paul Hodes has dropped from seven points to three fairly quickly. This is currently a Republican seat -- held by the retiring Judd Gregg -- and Democrats have long hoped to turn it into a pick-up opportunity. Thanks to Palin, that opportunity is suddenly looking more achievable. —Steve Benen 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
AN OVERLOOKED HOUSE VOTE ON TRIBAL JUSTICE.... I mentioned briefly yesterday afternoon that Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) voted last week against a measure to make it easier "for Native American tribal courts to prosecute non-natives who commit rape and other crimes on tribal lands." King wasn't alone -- while the bill passed the House easily with bipartisan support, more Republicans opposed it than supported it. It was approved, 326 to 92. What was up with those 92, all of whom were Republicans? I talked to a Hill staffer about this overnight, who explained what transpired. The staffer emailed me this, and I'm republishing the account with permission:
It went largely overlooked last week, but it seems like an important measure. I'm glad President Obama will sign it into law, and I can only hope those 92 opponents are prepared to explain to tribal communities what possessed them to vote the way they did. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
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. * Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) made it official yesterday afternoon, announcing that he's running for governor in Colorado as a member of the extremist American Constitution Party. He has not, however, filed the paperwork with the Colorado secretary of state, nor has he registered as a member of his new party. * Speaking of Colorado, it looks like Andrew Romanoff won't be ending his primary challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet (D) anytime soon -- the former state House Speaker sold his house so he could loan his campaign $325,000. * In Wisconsin, right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R), taking on Sen. Russ Feingold (D), recently disclosed that he owns as much as $315,000 in BP stock. On July 9, Johnson's campaign said he would move the investments into a blind trust. Yesterday, the far-right candidate started backing away from his pledge. * In Florida's Senate Democratic primary, Rep. Kendrick Meek launched his first television ad of the year, going after billionaire Jeff Greene pretty aggressively. * In Tennessee, the latest Mason-Dixon poll shows Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam leading the Republican gubernatorial primary with 36% support. Rep. Zach Wamp, who recently raised the specter of seceding from the United States, is second in the poll with 25%. Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, who doesn't believe Islam is a religion, is third with 20%. The winner will likely face businessman Mike McWherter (D) in November. * In Maryland's gubernatorial rematch, a Gonzales Research poll shows Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) narrowly leading former Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R), 45% to 42%. * It's primary day in Oklahoma, where both parties are holding gubernatorial primaries. Rep. Mary Fallin (R) and state Attorney General Drew Edmondson (D) are expected to win their respective races. * And let this be a lesson to party activists: if you're going to remove your opponent's campaign signs on public property, look for cameras that might catch you in the act. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
DISGRACED FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER PRETENDS TO HAVE CREDIBILITY.... Oh good, Newt is still talking. (thanks to reader D.F. for the tip)
Of course, Gingrich, a pseudo-intellectual crackpot, only has a "somewhat professorial reputation" among those who neglect to listen to what he has to say. This is, after all, the same Gingrich who insisted on national television recently that it was acceptable to Mirandize shoe-bomber Richard Reid because he was "an American citizen." (In our reality, Reid is a British citizen of Jamaican descent.) In light of the speech, Greg Sargent noted, "Newt Gingrich is set to duke it out with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney for the title of leading GOP voice on national security." I think that's right, but I also think it's an indictment of sorts. As potential GOP presidential candidates eye 2012, the leading Republican voices on national security are Gingrich, Palin, and Romney? Isn't that rather humiliating for a party that used to lead on these issues? Gingrich has exactly zero experience on foreign policy, military affairs, and national security. Romney recently tried to pretend to understand these issues, and was utterly humiliated. Palin has said publicly she thinks she understands foreign policy because Vladimir Putin flew over her house. The Republican Party likes to maintain the pretense that these issues "belong" to them -- all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding -- but the fact that their most noteworthy national luminaries on the subject are utterly clueless, and bring all the sophistication of a child to the debate, is pretty striking. This isn't to say the entire Republican Party is devoid of credible voices on national security and foreign policy; that would be an overstatement. Current and former officials like Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Colin Powell, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) all approach these issues with at least some seriousness and stature. Of course, since this same group also happens to agree with President Obama on national security and foreign policy, that's probably not much help when it comes to GOP politics. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
'WHY DID YOU GET ME SO DRUNK?'.... There was a Republican majority in the House for 12 years, ending in 2006, thanks in part to public opposition to the war in Iraq and the increasing unpopularity of the Bush/Cheney administration. But it didn't help that GOP lawmakers had become pretty comfortable with their excesses. Far-right lawmakers started sleeping around with increasing frequency; abuses of power became common; GOP members started getting arrested more frequently; and Republicans generally grew to tolerate an arrogant, permissive culture on the Hill. After losing control, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had no intention of moving his party ideologically -- if anything, the Republicans have grown considerably more extreme since becoming the minority party -- but he did set out to clean up his smaller caucus's act. How's that working out? Well, the GOP is still in the minority, but it nevertheless may have held onto some of its bad habits.
The conversation in question happened at the Capitol Hill Club during President Obama's speech in June about the BP oil spill. Terry was reportedly overheard asking the women next to him, "Why did you get me so drunk?" Terry denies having made the comment, but a longtime Capitol Hill Club member who overheard the exchange told Roll Call, "On the Hill, there's a lot of older men that just go home when they're done with votes. Then you have a smaller group that likes to knock back a few and have a good time." The incident came on the heels of former Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) being forced to resign in disgrace, after the lawmaker noted for touting abstinence-only programs was found to have carried on an extramarital affair with a member of his staff. And now we're seeing reports about Boehner intervening with other members of his caucus -- some who've crossed misconduct lines, and some who've come close. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
BRINGING INSTITUTIONAL REFORM TO THE SENATE.... When reviewing who and what are to blame for the death of the energy/climate bill, David Roberts labeled "the broken Senate" as the single most responsible factor. The "default supermajority requirement that's been imposed" was the "main" impediment, Roberts argued, adding, "[T]he supermajority requirement has perverse, deleterious consequences that extend much farther than most progressives seem to understand." I'm comfortable describing this Congress as having been a historic success, but it's painful to consider what would have been possible if the Senate operated under majority rule -- the way it was designed to function, and the way it used to function. Accomplishments would have been even better; the economy would be stronger; and efforts that died would have survived -- if only the Senate could vote on bills and nominations. There was a flurry of chatter in February about reforming the way the Senate operates, led in part by Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Ind.) public expressions of frustration, but in time the talk faded away. Ryan Grim and Sam Stein reported yesterday that the desire to reform the Senate hasn't disappeared entirely, and may be poised for a comeback.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Netroots Nation conference about his support for reform, but it's not just the leadership. Some of the Senate's newer members -- Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) -- endorsed reform, as did some current candidates who hope to join the institution -- Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), Elaine Marshall (D-N.C.) and Roxanne Conlin (D-Iowa). When I talked to Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) a couple of weeks ago, he seemed quite serious about this as well. Of course, there's the small matter of how reform might work, and how it might get accomplished. That's still coming together, but a strategy is taking shape.
Stay tuned. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
TWENTY YEARS LATER.... Yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disability Act, and Democrats honored the occasion with some worthwhile gestures. In Congress, for example, Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin (D) presided over the House of Representatives, which wouldn't be especially noteworthy except for the fact that Langevin is a quadriplegic, and was the first person in a wheelchair to ever wield the gavel. On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Obama hosted an event on the South Lawn, celebrating the ADA as "one of the most comprehensive civil rights bills in the history of this country."
Around the same time, in Kentucky, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, who opposes the Americans with Disability Act, decided to skip a local event commemorating the landmark legislation, choosing instead to go to a fundraiser with Jeb Bush. Paul's ADA opposition reminded Michael Tomasky to ask a good question: would the ADA pass today?
I'm not inclined to consider this a close call: the ADA would struggle to overcome a Republican filibuster if it were brought to the floor today. Twenty years ago, the legislation was championed by Democratic leaders like Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), but it also enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of Republicans like Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.). President George H.W. Bush was proud to sign that bill into law, and considered it one of the great achievements of his term. But in 2010, the Republican base would very likely demand to know where in the Constitution it says Congress can pass a law protecting Americans with disabilities, and GOP lawmakers would no doubt ask that its provisions be voluntary, so as to not "destroy jobs." —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
CLIMATE PEACOCKS SHOW THEIR FEATHERS.... In early June, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) worked with oil company lobbyists to craft a misguided scheme. Realizing that the Environmental Protection Agency has the still-unused authority to regulate carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act, the plan was to strip the EPA of its authority to act. It needed 51 votes to pass, but came up with 47. (The result, at the time, made clear that a meaningful climate bill would probably be impossible in this Congress.) Murkowski's scheme failed, but the idea behind the effort hasn't gone away.
For the senators most hostile to combating global warming, this is one of the more common arguments. The EPA shouldn't intervene to regulate carbon emissions, the pitch goes, because it should be lawmakers' job. And while that argument might appear sensible, it's hard to overstate how shallow it is. "Congress, not federal regulators, should set national energy policy"? Well, sure. But what happens when Congress won't, or can't, act? Rockefeller, in particular, has fought any effort to limit carbon emissions, helping bring the legislative process on the Hill to a halt. Now he wants the EPA to wait for Congress to do its job? Rockefeller is the one who doesn't want Congress to do its job. This isn't complicated -- the easiest way to block the EPA from acting is for Congress to pass a real energy/climate bill. But those most opposed to the EPA route also happen to be the ones most opposed to congressional action. It makes plain the motivations at play -- this isn't about where regulatory power should lie; it's about killing any and all efforts to deal with the climate crisis. Of course, it's not just Rockefeller. Indeed, most of the Republicans in the Senate have made the exact same argument, for the exact same reasons. The group has come to be known as "Climate Peacocks" -- they strut around, claiming to be serious about finding a solution, but like the "Deficit Peacocks," it's little more than an insincere charade. If Rockefeller's measure, which may come up for a vote before year's end, should somehow pass, President Obama has already made clear his intention to veto it. If Republicans take the congressional majority, the effort is certain to be a major fight next year. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
A DEEP, MISGUIDED SENSE OF VICTIMHOOD.... Last week, Rep. Jan Schakowksy (D-Ill.) made a reasonable suggestion: now would be a good time for her opponent, Joel Pollak (R), to stop writing for Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website. As Schakowksy sees it, congressional candidates shouldn't be associated with a partisan news outlet known for publishing misleading propaganda. Pollak was not only offended by the suggestion, he thought it appropriate to compare himself to a celebrated South African freedom-fighter killed by an apartheid government. Pollak's headline read, "Like Steve Biko, I Write What I Like."
As far as I can tell, Pollak wasn't kidding. He really is feeling so sorry for himself that he's lost all sense of reason. Schakowksy suggested he shouldn't write for a website that misleads its readers. In response, Pollak not only suggested his free speech rights are under assault, he compared himself to a heroic activist who was killed by racist regime. I really have to wonder -- where does the Republican Party find these guys? And what makes the GOP think they should be in Congress? As Josh Marshall concluded, "It does get a little hard with these folks to pick apart the willful provocation from the simply pathological." —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
July 26, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Tony Hayward is out as BP's chief executive: "On Monday, BP's board is expected to announce that Hayward, 53, will step down on Oct. 1. The departure, say people close to the company, will be his decision as much as the board's. Hayward, a geologist who has spent his entire career working for BP, is said to recognize that he has become a liability as the company tries to move forward." * The materials on the war in Afghanistan published through Wikileaks are important, but they're probably not the Pentagon Papers. * Despite an assumption that Senate Republicans will refuse to allow the chamber to vote on the legislation, the DISCLOSE Act will likely come to the floor for consideration this week, probably tomorrow. President Obama is pushing the GOP to let the Senate vote. * Housing surprise: "New-home buying surged in June after a May plunge caused by the end of a government tax credit, according to a better-than-expected report on the ailing housing sector." * If you're looking for the Senate Dems' scaled-back energy bill, its release has been pushed until tomorrow. * On a related note, thanks to unexpected support from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kas.), there's hope for a renewable energy standard in the bill. * Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) thinks the war in Iraq is over. That guy is so deeply confused, it's painful to think reporters still consider him an expert on military matters. * Are the ethics charges against Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) serious? Yes, they are. * This year's deficit: $1.47 trillion. That's actually a little lower than previously estimated. * It's sometimes fun to laugh at Rep. Steve King's (R-Iowa) extremism, but some of his positions aren't funny: "[King] last week voted against a bill making it easier for Native American tribal courts to prosecute non-natives who commit rape and other crimes on tribal lands." (thanks to B.D. for the tip) [Update: Here's some additional background information on the legislation.] * I have low expectations, but I'm glad Senate reform continues to percolate. * Thought-provoking piece from Van Jones on culture and technology in the wake of the Shirley Sherrod story. (thanks to T.D. for the reminder) * Not all for-profit colleges are the same. * If context is irrelevant, and misleading editing is acceptable, Breitbart appears to love al Qaeda. * On a related note, many in the media would have us believe "both sides" do what Breitbart does. That's not even close to being true. * Greg Sargent on the right's bizarre fascination with Journolist: "The real story here is that right wing media are engaged in a coordinated, conspiratorial effort to pretend that J-List represented a Vast Left-wing Media Conspiracy, when the evidence conclusively shows otherwise." * And on the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act, Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin (D) will preside over the House of Representatives this afternoon. Langevin, who is a quadriplegic, will be the first person in a wheelchair to wield the gavel. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
LEARNING THE WRONG LESSON.... Ezra had a fairly brief item today that summarizes a problem that comes up nearly every day. Last year's stimulus worked exactly as it was intended to work -- in some ways, it even exceeded expectations -- but it was too small. There was a hole in the economy, which turned out to be even bigger and more serious we realized at the time, and policymakers only filled part of it. Ezra noted that part of the problem may have been an assumption that Congress and the White House would get another bite at the apple.
This may seem like madness, because it is, but this is a fine summary of the status quo. Democrats wanted a bigger stimulus, but couldn't overcome Republican opposition. The recovery effort, then, was less successful, leading to a bizarre dynamic -- political rewards for those who were wrong, political punishment for those who were right. Those who screwed up the most before, during, and after the crisis are the same folks strutting around, proud as can be, unaware and unconcerned about how foolish reality makes them look -- because they're winning. My favorite metaphor continues to ring true. Imagine there's a massive, dangerous fire. Those responsible for the blaze insist that some lighter fluid should take care of the problem, while the fire department recommends water. Forced to compromise, the fire department uses less water than is needed, and the blaze is only partially contained. Those with the lighter fluid, who set the fire in the first place, see this and respond, "Told you so." Now, ideally voters would find this insane, and ignore the lighter-fluid crowd's nonsense. But the public isn't engaged at that level -- they know what they see, and in this case, they still see the flames, and don't understand why the fire department didn't get the job done. Ezra may be very well be right about the assumptions. To strain my metaphor a bit, maybe the fire department assumed they could always just send more trucks as needed. They couldn't. Look, this is pretty simple. Early last year, the economy stood at the brink of an extraordinary collapse. There were effectively four options: 1. Pass a massive, ambitious economic stimulus. 2. Pass a trimmed down economic stimulus that could overcome a Republican filibuster. 3. Do nothing. 4. Pass a five-year spending freeze proposed by confused congressional Republicans at the time. Left with limited options, Democrats went with #2, and disaster was averted. We would have nevertheless been better off with #1, but we can all be very thankful #3 and #4 were rejected. But the economy still needs more, and it won't get it, in part because Republicans learned the wrong lessons, and in part because they hope to keep the economy down on purpose to improve the GOP's electoral chances. —Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
COMING SOON, TO A TERRORIST RECRUITING VIDEO NEAR YOU.... There's already a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, but as Islamic population grows in the area, there are plans to build a Muslim community center, which would include a pool and gym. Local officials have already approved the plan to build the facility, but right-wing bigots in Murfreesboro are organizing in larger numbers to speak out against the community center. With this in mind, Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, a Republican gubernatorial candidate popular with Tea Party zealots, was asked at a recent event, "We've got a threat that's invading our country from the Muslims. What's your stand on that?" He replied by suggesting Islam might not be a religion that qualifies for protection under the First Amendment.
The gubernatorial candidate went to suggest that the law-abiding Muslims in Murfreesboro might be "bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee." Now, it's tempting to approach this rationally. One might want to explain to Ramsey what the First Amendment is, and why Islam deserves as much protection as every other faith tradition. One might also be tempted to explain that the local Muslim community has expressed no interest in "bringing Sharia Law" to Murfreesboro. One might even be tempted to describe Ramsey as blisteringly stupid. But let's put all of that aside, and consider a separate angle: is Ramsey doing al Qaeda a huge favor? Terrorists are desperate to convince Muslim populations that the United States is at war with Islam. Ramsey's moronic remarks, then, are practically custom made for a recruiting video -- here's an American official, running to be the chief executive of a state, arguing publicly that every religion deserves freedom under U.S. law except Islam, which he suggests might be a "cult." This message appeals to the American voters in the room, who make no effort to hide their hatred and mistrust of their fellow neighbors who happen to be Muslim. I seriously doubt Ramsey is sophisticated enough to understand this, but his bigotry is the kind of approach that promotes and encourages the radicalism that undermines our security. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
HOUSE, SENATE REPUBLICANS LATCH ONTO NBPP GARBAGE.... Several congressional Republicans have said they would use their power, in the event of a new GOP majority on the Hill, to go after the Obama administration relentlessly. Threats of endless subpoenas and hearings aren't just bluster; they're what we could expect from a right-wing congressional majority. But what would Republicans actually look into? Take a wild guess.
This is hopelessly insane. There's just no way around this simple fact. The NBPP "controversy" is complete and utter garbage, a detail even many conservatives are willing to concede. Judiciary Committee Republicans, I'm willing to bet, know this. They know the Bush Justice Department dismissed the issue as pointless; they know no one was prevented from voting or felt intimidated at that Philly precinct; they know that the New Black Panther Party didn't even support Obama. But these congressional Republicans pursue transparent garbage like this for one reason: to stoke the fires of racial resentment. That's why Fox News has been obsessed with this story; it's why Senate Republicans want hearings; and it's why House Republicans want a special prosecutor. The desire to make white voters afraid is as obvious as it is shameless as it is ugly. Republicans have worked to undermine the country in a wide variety of ways over the last 18 months, but deliberately trying to scare whites into fearing blacks with a trumped up story is arguably the most loathsome move yet. Commenting on conservative media's interest in the NBPP story recently, Jon Chait noted, "What you're starting to see from Fox News now, though, is the most widespread and mainstream right-wing effort to exploit racial fears against Obama.... There has been a great deal of right-wing insanity unleashed over the last year and a half, but this is the first time that the fear has an explicitly racial cast. You now have the largest organ of movement conservatism promoting Limbaugh's idee fixe that the Obama administration represents black America's historical revenge against whites." And now notice the next step. From Limbaugh ... to Fox News ... to the Republican base ... to House Republicans ... to Senate Republicans. This is the pattern that will dominate American politics in 2011 and 2012 if there's a GOP majority on the Hill. (Note, these same Republican lawmakers saw no need for a single hearing when it came to the Plame scandal, Scooter Libby and his get-out-of-jail-free card, the warrantless-wiretap scandal, the torture memos, the purge of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, the no-bid Halliburton contracts, the cost estimates of Medicare Part D deliberately hidden from Congress, Interior Department officials literally in bed with oil company officials, the pundits paid to toe the administration's line in the media without disclosure, the probably illegal fake-news segments the administration created to run on local news outlets without disclosure, the misuse of "faith-based" grants to help Republican congressional candidates, and Karl Rove's campaign "briefings" to federal offices in violation of the Hatch Act. But the NBPP story? That's worth investigating.) I should be past the point of getting surprised, but this is disgusting -- and Republicans know it. I know RNC Chairman Michael Steele recently conceded his party relied on a racially-divisive "Southern Strategy" for at least four decades, but the sooner the public realizes that these same tactics haven't gone away, the better. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
THE RIGHT ISN'T QUITE DONE WITH SHIRLEY SHERROD.... Perhaps the only person who came out of the Shirley Sherrod controversy looking better was the one who was forced to resign from her job. The right went after Sherrod, but the result of the dispute was her looking like something of a hero, and her attackers losing all credibility. But conservatives aren't quite done with Shirley Sherrod just yet. They've started with the conclusion -- Sherrod must be wrong about something -- and are working backwards to rationalize the preconceived narrative. To that end, the American Spectator has a piece today accusing Sherrod of lying about sheriff Claude Screws lynching Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative. If you're unfamiliar with the case, it originated in Baker County, in rural southwest Georgia, where Sherrod is from. In 1943, Screws, the white sheriff, arrested a black man, Hall, who was accused of theft and taken to the local courthouse in handcuffs. Upon their arrival, Screws and his two white deputies mercilessly beat Hall, by some accounts for as long as 30 minutes. Screws then dragged Hall's unconscious body, feet first, through the courthouse square. Hall died soon after. Screws was convicted on federal charges, but the Supreme Court ultimately overturned the conviction over inaccurate jury instructions. In her speech, Sherrod explained, "Claude Screws lynched a black man." The American Spectator wants readers to believe she was lying -- because Screws didn't use a rope. Hall was beaten to death, but to writer Jeffrey Lord, a former Reagan political aide, that apparently doesn't count. As Paul Campos noted, "It's hard to understand how this kind of thing gets published in a world that includes editors, higher cognitive function, and/or common decency." I'll just let Adam Serwer take it from here:
The right's misconduct last week was nauseating, but the American Spectator's piece is beneath contempt. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
WAMP WALKS BACK SECESSION TALK.... Late last week, Rep. Zach Wamp, a leading Republican gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee, raised a few eyebrows with remarks about secession. "I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," Wamp told National Journal. Wamp went on to praise Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for also raising concerns about the U.S. government's "oppressive hand." Over the weekend, Wamp walked these remarks back, at least a little.
Wamp went on to say, "We're going to be a proud partner as a member of the United States of America. But there needs to be a conflict between the states and the federal government." A few things jump out here. First, I tend to be uncomfortable with any sentence that starts, "Of course we will not secede from the union, but..." It's the 21st century, for crying out loud. Second, if Wamp is certain that secession is off the table -- how big of him -- why is it, exactly, that he said on Friday that state may be "forced to consider separation from this government"? Where does a sentiment like that come from? And third, while federal-state tensions are inevitable in our system, to assume that there "needs to be a conflict" between the two is misguided. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
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 case recent developments involving Colorado Republicans weren't quite nutty enough, U.S. Senate hopeful Ken Buck -- the Tea Party favorite -- has been caught lashing out at his Birther supporters. Buck was filmed telling a voter, "Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?" He walked back the language yesterday. * If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, Gov. Joe Manchin (D) has the early lead in West Virginia's Senate special election, leading John Raese (R) by 16, 51% to 35%. * In related news, the race in West Virginia keeps getting more crowded. Including Manchin, the frontrunner in November, there are now 15 candidates, including 11 Republicans. The parties' primaries are scheduled for Aug. 28. * Missouri is home to one of the more competitive Senate contests this year, a contest Democrats consider a pick-up opportunity. At this point, however, the GOP has the edge -- a Mason-Dixon poll shows Rep. Roy Blunt (R) leading Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), 48% to 42%. * In case there were any doubts about how nervous Sen. John McCain (R) has been about his GOP primary against J.D. Hayworth, consider his FEC filings -- McCain spent more than $10.2 million in the second quarter alone. * Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) told the Christian Broadcasting Network that GOP extremist Sharron Angle is "not mainstream for Nevada or probably most any other place in America." * And in 2012 news, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has ruled out a presidential campaign, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) will likely launch his national campaign next year, regardless of what other potential candidates decide. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
GOVERNOR TANCREDO?.... Late last week in Colorado, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) delivered a bizarre ultimatum to the Republican Party's two gubernatorial candidates: if they're trailing the Democratic nominee in the polls in mid-August, they should agree to drop out and let him jump in. And what if the leading GOP gubernatorial candidates -- Scott McInnis and Dan Maes -- refuse to go along with Tancredo's scheme? The right-wing former House member said he'd run as a third-party candidate in the fall, seeking the nomination of hyper-conservative American Constitution Party. As of today, the threat is apparently no longer operative -- Tancredo isn't waiting to see what the Republican candidates will do or what their chances will be in the fall.
It's not entirely clear at this point what prompted Tancredo to jump the gun, but it probably didn't help that he got into a screaming match this morning on a talk-radio show with state GOP chair Dick Wadhams, with both calling each other "liars." It's already a bizarre race -- McInnis is the frontrunner, despite his humiliating plagiarism scandal -- but Tancredo will likely make this an even uglier circus. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) has been competitive in recent polls, but his odds will likely improve if Tancredo and the eventual GOP nominee split the right. For his part, Tancredo, who sort ran for president in 2008, will no doubt love the added attention, though it's unclear if he will be able to shape a gubernatorial platform. His recent efforts have included a push to impeach President Obama and a desire to convince voters that the president is more dangerous than al Qaeda. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
STILL A REPUBLICAN IN GOOD STANDING?.... One of the key takeaways of last week's Shirley Sherrod controversy was getting a better sense of who Andrew Breitbart is, and what his right-wing operation is all about. As Joshua Green noted last week, "[T]he moral ugliness of what's just happened is glaring, and it'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." But as scandalous as Breitbart's misconduct was, it's apparently not quite scandalous enough to bother the Republican National Committee.
When TPM got in touch with RNC spokesman Doug Heye he confirmed the existence of the event, but wouldn't comment on Breitbart's scheduled participation. Now, it's possible that the RNC invited Breitbart to be part of the campaign/fundraising event before he promoted a misleading video that smeared an innocent Department of Agriculture official. But last week was a permanent credibility-killer for the conservative media activist, and for Michael Steele to pal around with him for some Beverly Hills cash is ridiculous. The RNC is shameless, but is it this shameless? If the RNC invited Breitbart to be a special guest before his recent hatchet-job, the party can simply change course, and announce that he will no longer be participating. But to go ahead with the Breitbart/Steele headlining now would be crazy, even for the RNC. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
EVEN THE WEAK ENERGY BILL ISN'T A SURE-THING.... Late last week, we received genuinely awful news out of the Senate -- Democratic leaders, unable to put together an energy package that could overcome Republican obstructionism, were throwing in the towel. Instead of a meaningful, ambitious bill, the Senate would take up a scaled-back, watered-down, weakened package that wouldn't even try to address global warming and carbon emissions. It was cold comfort, but at least the bill would have a few worthwhile provisions, including new oil company regulations and Home Star (the program formally known as Cash for Caulkers). The legislation would be a shell of its former self, but the Senate has to pass something, no matter how narrow, and if this is the best we can do in our broken legislative system, it's the best we can do. But it's worth remembering that the bill likely to be unveiled today -- the one that's been stripped of its most important elements, just to ensure its passage -- might fail, too.
If this sounds familiar, it's because we saw this debate start to unfold in May with the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act." Under existing law, there's a $75 million liability cap for oil spills. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) proposed increasing it to $10 billion, but Republicans refused. The liability issue never really went away, though, and is drawing fire all over again. The leadership, at least for now, still sounds optimistic.
—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)
'THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEWS AND PROPAGANDA'.... E.J. Dionne Jr. considers the smearing of Shirley Sherrod as a possible "turning point in American politics," but not for the reason that generated so much discussion last week. For the Washington Post, the reason this is a "time for action" is the right has embraced "racial backlash politics" in the hopes of destroying President Obama, and news organizations -- treating extremist rants as "one side of the story" -- are accepting right-wing propaganda as legitimate. Dionne laments the Obama administration's initial handling of the Sherrod matter, but noted that "the Obama team was reacting to a reality: the bludgeoning of mainstream journalism into looking timorously over its right shoulder and believing that 'balance' demands taking seriously whatever sludge the far right is pumping into the political waters." This isn't a new phenomenon -- see 2000, presidential election of -- but it's getting worse.
Dionne concludes that, in addition to the administration learning a lesson about overreacting to an inane media climate, "the mainstream media should stop being afraid of insisting on the difference between news and propaganda." That's exceptionally good advice, which will almost certainly be ignored. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
THE FIGHT OVER TAX CUTS THAT DIDN'T WORK.... By any sensible measure, the Bush tax cuts failed as an economic policy. When approved by Republicans, we were assured they would create robust economic growth -- which never materialized. We were supposed to see millions of new jobs -- which were never created. When passed nearly a decade ago, we were told the tax breaks would keep the budget in balance -- which actually turned into massive deficits. But one of the bigger debates in Washington in the coming months will be over whether to keep the tax policies in place, despite their obvious failure. When Republicans passed the tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, they set the cuts to expire at the end of 2010. The point was to obscure the cuts' cost, play a dangerous budget game, and make it so that the GOP wouldn't have to pay for their own experiment. While some Dems are wavering in the face of Republican demands, the Obama administration's line is the right one.
In other words, the line Obama took during the presidential campaign is the same line the administration supports now. If we want to talk about mandates, this is the tax policy the public endorsed. The NYT noted over the weekend that the issue will "move to the top of the agenda when lawmakers return to Washington in September from their summer recess, just as the midterm campaign gets under way in earnest."
Every time Republicans complain, the same answer should come to mind -- it was their idea for the cuts to expire. Maybe if the GOP hadn't left a $1.3 trillion deficit for Democrats to clean up, it'd be easier to talk about keeping more of the tax breaks Republicans love so much. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
WIKILEAKS AND AFGHANISTAN -- WHAT WE'VE LEARNED.... We knew the blockbuster story would come eventually; we just didn't know when or what revelations it might include. But this morning, the New York Times and the UK's Guardian report on tens of thousands of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan, revealed through Wikileaks. There's no shortage of angles here, but I found Michael Crowley's take pretty compelling.
That sounds about right. With 92,000 In the case of Pakistan's military spy service lending support to the Afghan insurgency, for example, that's important -- it's the lede of the NYT piece today -- but it's something we already knew. In fact, the president has already talked about it publicly, and more importantly, it's a dynamic that's improved of late, with Pakistani officials having moved away from the Taliban earlier this year. This isn't to say it's a non-story, and there are some revelations that seem new. U.S. drone missions have apparently crashed far more than we'd been led to believe, for example, and the Taliban has heat-seeking missiles that we hadn't heard about. And while details like these clearly matter, they're not necessarily the kind of disclosures that are likely to fundamentally change the debate. But for the administration, it may not be the specific details that matter most. Rather, this may be more of a sum-greater-than-parts situation -- the larger revelations may not reframe the entire conflict, but taken together, they still paint a portrait of a conflict that's gone very poorly for the last several years. If the administration's goal is to bolster public confidence in the mission, today certainly won't help. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
July 25, 2010
A 'SLAP IN THE FACE' -- IN 1981.... Charles Krauthammer had a surprisingly interesting column a couple of weeks ago, some of which I even found vaguely persuasive (an odd feeling given its author). But one paragraph in particular got me thinking.
Just six months after Reagan's inauguration, was the "honeymoon" really perceived as over between him and the "new right"? A friend of mine dug up the article Krauthammer referenced, and it's almost amusing to read nearly three decades later. It ran on July 21, 1981 (obviously, no link available), and it came in response to conservative outrage over the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The "New Right" was defined, at the time, as breaking with the Goldwater old-guard and expanding the GOP with outreach to the fledgling religious right and use of "sophisticated campaign techniques," such as direct mail. And six months in, the leaders of this faction weren't happy. The O'Connor nomination made them livid, and conservatives grew all the more frustrated when, despite an aggressive campaign involving "letters and telegrams," the right couldn't even find Republican senators willing to come out publicly against the nominee. (O'Connor was confirmed 99 to 0.) But the anger and frustration was more expansive than one high court nomination. "In terms of having any real influence with the Reagan administration, we just haven't had any," Howard Phillips, at the time the head of the Conservative Caucus, said. "All they've done is throw us a few bones to keep the dogs from biting their heels." The right was angry when George H.W. Bush, perceived as a moderate, was added to the 1980 ticket. Conservatives were angrier still when James Baker became Reagan's chief of staff -- a man activists on the right considered overly pragmatic and insufficiently conservative. And by this time 29 years ago, conservatives could hardly contain their disappointment. Leaders on the right began complaining regularly that they "won the election, but lost the White House." Paul Weyrich questioned whether the relationship between his conservative allies and the Reagan administration was "salvageable." And all of this came before Reagan raised taxes, extended "amnesty" to undocumented immigrants, expanded the size of the federal bureaucracy, tripled the deficit, negotiated with our most hated enemy without preconditions -- and became the single most revered figure in Republican circles of the 20th century, up to and including the RNC describing him, in all seriousness, as Ronaldus Magnus. I guess the moral of the story is that perceptions can change over time. —Steve Benen 12:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)
HARRY REID AND DAN CHOI AT NN 2010.... If you missed it, this was one of the more important and memorable moments from this year's Netroots Nation conference. I don't doubt Harry Reid's sincerity on this for a second, and if he can get this done, I believe he will. But time's running out, and if DADT repeal doesn't get finished this year, it may not happen for a very long time. —Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (3)
ANGLE VS. ANGLE.... It appears that Sharron Angle, the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, is beginning to realize that her own views are too radical to get elected. So, she apparently feels compelled to start covering them up, hoping voters don't notice. Speaking at a right-wing gathering in Las Vegas yesterday, the Republican Senate hopeful shared some thoughts on Social Security policy, saying she wants to see the government pay back the $2.5 trillion that's been "raided and pillaged out of the Social Security fund." More importantly, Angle insisted, "I've never said I want to eliminate, I always said I want to save Social Security by paying back." I'm including this video to help highlight just how false her claim really is. Now that she's in the general election, Angle wants voters to believe she never intended to "eliminate" Social Security. But during the primary, Angle wasn't vague about her position: "We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized.... It can't be fixed." Does she assume that these tapes no longer exist? It's a reminder, though, that Angle is following Rand Paul's path -- honest radicalism is an electoral loser. If an extremist wants to get elected, he/she is going to have to pretend to have mainstream beliefs. If that means lying, and hoping voters are foolish enough to fall for it, so be it. —Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
A CORPORATE CULTURE AND LOSING 'A SENSE OF SHAME'.... If you read one piece today, make it Dana Milbank's Washington Post item on the push and pull between corporate demands and government safeguards. It's an important column -- and it doesn't even include the usually-obligatory "both sides are bad" caveat. What set Milbank off, for good reason, was Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship's appearance at the National Press Club this week. Blankenship is well known as one of the nation's most aggressive anti-union conservative voices, who rejects both the need for safety regulations and the science behind global warming. Blankenship's national notoriety grew in April when an explosion at one of his mines killed 29 miners, a tragedy that helped expose Massey's thousands of safety violations and reckless business practices. This week, Blankenship told reporters that what the industry needs is not more oversight, but less. "We need to let businesses function as businesses," he said, with the government "leaving it alone." Legal safeguards, Blankenship added, are "impeding" businesses' "ability to pursue their careers, or their happiness." Milbank had seen enough.
Milbank didn't emphasize the partisan/electoral considerations here, but there's no mystery -- Republicans are proud to stand on the wrong side of the fight. Indeed, they brag about it. Blankenship wants the government not to bother unsafe coal mine operators, and the GOP agrees. BP was responsible for the worst oil spill in American history, and the GOP took its side. Wall Street's irresponsibility nearly collapsed the global financial system, and when Democrats demanded new accountability, the GOP took their orders from industry lobbyists. The column concludes that the "corporate culture" has "lost its sense of shame." By any reasonable measure, this will get considerably worse if that shameless "corporate culture" is empowered by a new Republican majority next year that intends to give Blankenship and his ilk everything they could ask for. —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
'WE WILL REGRET IT'.... One of the more dramatic disappointments of the year is the apparent failure of comprehensive energy/climate reform*, which seemed to fail with a whimper this week. The Senate Democratic leadership felt like it had no choice but to scrap the effort, at least for now, in the face of an unyielding Republican filibuster. Thomas Friedman spreads the blame around today, before concluding, "We will regret it." But instead of a traditional column, Friedman publishes a variety of items -- round-up style -- a couple of which stood out for me. For example, our global competitors are thinking ahead while we're not:
Domestic industries are ready to expand, but they can't because our Senate is broken:
And hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham wrote some wise words in a letter to investors:
* fixed —Steve Benen 9:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
OBAMA BORROWS FROM MADDOW IN NETROOTS APPEAL.... In a bit of a surprise yesterday afternoon, attendees at this year's Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas heard a pre-recorded message from President Obama. It was a reminder that as the midterms draw closer -- 100 days until Election Day -- Democratic leaders will be making a more concerted effort to appeal to progressives. As for the president's message, it seemed implicit that the White House understands liberal frustration with the pace of progress, but Obama wants to remind the left "to consider all that we've accomplished so far." At that point, the video stopped showing the president, and started showing a segment from "The Rachel Maddow Show," aired about a month ago. It showed the host pointing to some of the breakthrough accomplishments of the last 18 months: Wall Street reform, the Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, S-CHIP expansion, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, nuclear arms deal with Russia, a new global nonproliferation initiative, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, dismantled the MMS, and student loan reform. The list didn't include, by the way, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years. These were probably left out of the litany to save time, which in and of itself seems significant -- the accomplishments are so plentiful, there's just not enough time in a four-minute presentation to mention them all. The fact that the White House made use of the Maddow clip was also an interesting move. The president could have just as easily read the same list of successes himself, but the video instead relied on an outside voice to lend the accomplishments more objective credibility. That Rachel is probably more popular with many NN attendees right now than the president didn't hurt, either. It's also worth noting that the clip wasn't just about Obama taking a victory lap. The president emphasized that "we're not done," and vowed to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Which led to the midterm pitch: "We're moving America forward. When we've come this far, we can't afford to slide back. And that's the choice America faces this November. Between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, and moving forward with policies that are leading us out. I don't need to tell you that. What I'm asking you is to keep making your voices heard. To keep holding me accountable. To keep up the fight. Change is hard, but if we've learned anything these past 18 months, it's that change is possible. It's possible when folks like you remember the fundamental truth of our democracy: that change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up. It comes from the Netroots, the grassroots, every American who loves their country and believes they can make a difference. We've done it before. We can do it again. Let's finish what we've started." —Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
July 24, 2010
OBAMA SHINES A BRIGHT LIGHT ON BOEHNER'S 'IDEAS' ON JOBS.... It was largely overlooked during a busy media week, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who's been reluctant to talk about his party's policy agenda in detail, was willing to outline three measures he'd pursue as Speaker to create American jobs. The list made it painfully clear -- to anyone who takes substance even a little seriously -- that Boehner has no idea what he's talking about. In fact, the remarks were so patently ridiculous, President Obama devoted much of his weekly address to shining a bright light on Boehner's understanding of job creation. After talking in some detail about his own approach to economic growth, Obama warned against going back "to the same ideas that created this mess in the first place," adding, "Unfortunately, those are the ideas we keep hearing from our friends in the other party." "This week, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives offered his plan to create jobs," the president explained. "It's a plan that's surprisingly short, and sadly familiar. First, he would repeal health insurance reform, which would take away tax credits from millions of small business owners, and take us back to the days when insurance companies had free rein to drop coverage and jack up premiums. Second, he would say no to new investments in clean energy, after his party already voted against the clean energy tax credits and loans that are creating thousands of new jobs and hundreds of new businesses. And third, even though his party voted against tax cuts for middle-class families, he would permanently keep in place the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans - the same tax cuts that have added hundreds of billions to our debt. "These are not new ideas. They are the same policies that led us into this recession. They will not create jobs; they will kill them. They will not reduce our deficit; they will add $1 trillion to our deficit. They will take us backward at a time when we need to keep America moving forward." If you listen really carefully at the 3:44 mark, you'll notice that the president actually chuckles, just a little, when describing just how ridiculous Boehner's approach to job creation really is. That's what it has come to in 2010 -- the Republican agenda is so truly awful, it's hard to describe it without finding it literally comical. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
THE RETURN OF THE GOP'S SECESSION TALK.... The Republican Party's flirtation with political radicalism has been one of the more disturbing developments of the last 18 months. Rhetoric and arguments that were once considered extreme -- if not entirely beyond the norms of American mainstream discourse -- have become almost routine, not just with the Republican base, but with Republican lawmakers and officials. But perhaps nothing -- not even frequent Republican efforts to compare the president to Hitler -- reflects GOP radicalism more than talk of secession. This first popped up in earnest in April 2009, when Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) complained that the United States government has "become oppressive in ... its interference with the affairs of our state." He added, "We think it's time to draw the line in the sand and tell Washington that no longer are we going to accept their oppressive hand in the state of Texas." Soon after, Perry said he wasn't advocating secession, "but if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that." A year later, we're hearing similar talk in Tennessee.
Wamp isn't just some crazy person on talk radio -- he's an eight-term member of Congress who hopes to be the chief executive of a state next year. To be sure, the right-wing congressman has a history of saying bizarre things. A month ago, Wamp suggested publicly that improvements to Chattanooga's economy were a divine reward from God for the city's lack of abortion clinics. The man has even said he sleeps with a gun, just in case. But dabbling in Civil War talk is irresponsible, and frankly, dangerous. Those who love the United States should not go around carelessly threatening to secede from it. Even by modern GOP standards, this is just crazy. If our modern politics were more grounded, we'd hear widespread denunciations of Wamp's talk, and he'd be forced to apologize for such extremism. In 2010, however, Wamp will face no punishment at all, and his gubernatorial campaign will probably not be affected, since he's appealing to the extremist elements of his party base anyway. Be afraid. —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)
COMPARING THE TEA PARTIERS TO JESUS (SERIOUSLY).... Prominent right-wing activist David Barton recently equated anti-government zealots in the so-called Tea Party "movement" to the Founding Fathers. Yesterday, Barton went a little further, comparing the far-right activists to Jesus Christ. Seriously. Kyle, the irreplaceable blogger at Right Wing Watch, posted the audio clip and transcribed Barton's comments on a right-wing radio program. Barton told listeners:
Got that? Tea Party extremism has become controversial ... just like Jesus was controversial. For Christians, Jesus was sent by God to bring salvation to humanity. Tea Partiers, meanwhile, are enraged about taxes and the president's birth certificate. How is it that I never noticed the similarities until now? And who's David Barton? If the name isn't familiar to you, he's worth reading up on. Barton became a celebrity in the religious right in the '90s, serving as a pseudo-historian trying to convince fellow activists to reject the separation of church and state. Objective analysis of Barton's materials found glaring factual errors -- which often happens when someone pretends to be a historian. More recently, Barton helped write the absurd Texas curriculum standards, despite his lack of credentials; became a faculty member at Glenn Beck's "university"; became a close political ally of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R); and was the subject of a fairly devastating Keith Olbermann segment. And now he's publicly equating Tea Partiers with Jesus. The hilarity never ends. —Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a disturbing trend in religious bigotry in the U.S. While the right-wing backlash against a Muslim community center in Manhattan has generated considerable attention, Evan McMorris-Santoro reported this week that similar ugly disputes are breaking out in a wide variety of communities.
The bigotry on display is blatant enough to be disgusting. A Muslim group on Staten Island, for example, is planning to convert an old convent into a mosque, prompting one local resident to tell a reporter, "We just want to leave our neighborhood the way it is -- Christian, Catholic." The convent ultimately recanted its agreement to sell the facility to the Muslim group. It is the 21st century, by the way. I just thought I'd mention that. Also from the God Machine this week: * Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) signed a law earlier this month allowing locals to carry loaded firearms to services in houses of worship, as part of a congregation's "security force." This week, the executive director of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops said guns will not be welcome in their churches. This will not run afoul of the new state law, which allows houses of worship to impose their own restrictions. * Did Rupert Murdoch kill Beliefnet, one of the web's most popular and useful faith-based sites? Apparently so. * The generation that created the religious right movement now has grown children -- who don't necessarily agree with their parents' rigid theocratic worldview. (thanks to D.J. for the tip) —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
RANGEL'S IN TROUBLE, BUT ENSIGN'S IN EVEN WORSE SHAPE.... The Washington Post has run a couple of items over the last day noting the ethics allegations surrounding Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). Today's article noted that Rangel's intention to fight the charges "could wind up tarnishing the whole party just weeks before the midterm elections." There's no doubt that the Rangel ethics matter is serious. It may even be time for the 20-term lawmaker to gracefully step aside before the probe permanently tarnishes his legacy. But while the ethics investigation into a House Democrat has generated considerable attention, you may not have heard that a conservative Republican senator conceded yesterday that he's cooperating with a federal criminal investigation of another conservative Republican senator.
That's the right move for Coburn. A year ago, the right-wing Oklahoman suggested he might not cooperate, arguig that he, as a medical professional, considered Ensign his patient. (Given that Coburn is an OB-GYN, the argument defied any reasonable understanding of logic and anatomy.) Coburn wisely decided not to pursue this. Rather than fighting, the Oklahoma Republican reportedly turned over more than 1,200 pages of documents to the Justice Department. Coburn's revelations -- made late on a Friday afternoon -- come on the heels of news that Ensign's aides have told investigators that the senator knew he was violating ethics rules on lobbying restrictions, but did it anyway. I continue to marvel at this scandal. Here we have John Ensign, a "family values" conservative Republican, who had an extra-marital sexual relationship with his friend's wife, while condemning others' moral failings. Ensign's parents offered to pay hush-money. He ignored ethics laws and tried to use his office to arrange lobbying jobs for his mistress' husband. The likelihood of Ensign being indicted seems fairly high. And yet, there's no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign's home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace. Instead, the media's fascinated with Charlie Rangel. Rangel is facing a probe from the House ethics committee, while Ensign is under scrutiny from the FBI. Why would Rangel "tarnish his whole party" in an election year, while Ensign's sex-ethics-corruption scandal be deemed irrelevant to the Republican Party? —Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
NOTHING 'REMARKABLE OR PARTICULARLY INTERESTING' ABOUT BUSINESS COMPLAINTS.... For about a decade, corporate America shaped the business landscape -- deregulation, tax breaks, easy money -- to its liking. The promised prosperity never materialized, and for most of the country, it was a lost decade. The Obama administration is trying a new approach, and as Daniel Gross noted the other day, corporate America has begun whining incessantly, exhibiting "an unseemly combination of myopia and ingratitude."
I was pleased to see Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner take a dismissive attitude of the complaints this week.
Asked about the Business Roundtable's 54-page memo, asking for a return to a regulatory environment more in line with the Bush era, the Treasury Secretary described it as "a long, diffuse list of familiar concerns, again reflecting nothing remarkable … in the fact that business would like to operate with fewer restrictions." Geithner's received some warranted criticism of late, but on this, I like his attitude. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
July 23, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * In the Gulf: "Ships relaying the sights and sounds from BP's broken oil well stood fast Friday as the leftovers of Tropical Storm Bonnie blew straight for the spill site, threatening to force a full evacuation that would leave engineers clueless about whether a makeshift cap on the gusher was holding." * Oh my: "Long before an eruption of gas turned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig into a fireball, an alarm system designed to alert the crew and prevent combustible gases from reaching potential sources of ignition had been deliberately disabled, the former chief electronics technician on the rig testified Friday." * European banks fared better than expected in their "stress tests." * As the U.S. prepares for joint military drills with South Korea, North Korea is threatening a "physical response." * Why congressional Republicans continue to cozy up to Wall Street is a mystery: "The government's pay czar announced Friday that 17 companies benefiting from federal bailout money handed out $1.6 billion in excess executive pay at the height of the financial crisis. The firms include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America." * As Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai considers outreach his fellow Pashtuns in the insurgency, he's losing one-time allies. * With Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on board, there are now three Senate Republicans prepared to support Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination. * President Obama takes a brief victory lap after some legislative breakthroughs this week. * If you want to talk about austerity, let's talk about the Pentagon. * Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), facing serious ethics allegations, doesn't know how to say "no comment." * Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) sounds cautiously optimistic about New START ratification. * We certainly should do better than sixth: "[T]he U.S. now ranks sixth in the world in terms of the percent of the population with college credentials." * The lunatics from the Westboro Baptist "Church" descended on Comic Con in San Diego this week. I greatly enjoyed the counter-protest; those are my kind of folks (the geeks, not the bigots). Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
NO PULITZERS FOR YOU.... It occurs to me that this has not been a stellar week for the American political media. The Shirley Sherrod story was, of course, a humiliating fiasco for a lot of people and institutions, but it was especially humiliating for Fox News, and should serve as a permanent credibility killer for right-wing activist Andrew Breitbart. But there were other serious missteps. Consider some of the developments of the last few days: * Just days after Breitbart published misleading garbage, and he admitted to not having done any due diligence or used any professional standards, Politico named the activist one of the nation's "50 Politicos to Watch." Breitbart is one of those special few, Politico said, who "set this city's agenda." The accompanying profile -- in the "scenemakers" category -- included quotes about his "mystique" and "wit." * Politico Executive Editor Jim VandeiHei equated Breitbart with the Huffington Post, only one of which feature actual reporters, editors, and professional standards. He went on to equate MSNBC and Fox News, which is as common as it is misguided. * Tucker Carlson, Jonathan Strong, and The Daily Caller became obsessed with a listserv made up of center-left writers, reporters, academics, and wonks. In the process, they ran pieces that "have misstated fact, misled readers, and omitted evidence that would contradict" the agreed-upon conservative thesis. [Disclosure: I was a member of said listserv.] * Politico made a candid concession about its interest in traffic. Greg Sargent summarized, "This is actually an important concession: Frivolous items about Sarah Palin do degrade our discourse, but we need to do them, because the simple fact is that people click on them in droves." When we consider complaints about the "cravenness of the legitimate press," it's weeks like this one that stand out as especially egregious. Indeed, there's no real sense that major outlets realize they've erred, that those with no credibility deserve to be treated accordingly, etc. When the Obama administration evaluated its handling of the Sherrod matter, and realized it had made a mistake, it did what many news outlets didn't -- it apologized and tried to set things right. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday:
I'm not optimistic. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
INHOFE STILL SEES 'GLOBAL COOLING'.... It happens every year. Winter comes, snow falls, and right-wing nuts start insisting that cold weather necessarily disproves global warming. And perhaps no nut is as aggressive in his denialism than Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who continues to believe winters constitute evidence against climate change. But if the confused conservative senator considers January reason enough to reject the science behind global warming, what does he think of late July? ABC's Jonathan Karl asked him.
And Inhofe would be entirely right, if by "all the scientists," he meant "all the lobbyists representing the oil and coal industries." Karl talked to the chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, who was unequivocal. "What I don't understand is when you see evidence, that looks at all those indicators in one place, on one figure, decrease in glaciers, I don't see how any reasonable person can look at that and not agree that the globe is warming," Thomas Peterson said. "The indicators are irrefutable." As for Inhofe's bizarre belief in global cooling, take a moment to consider this David Leonhardt piece from the other day.
The only thing more dangerous than Jim Inhofe's allergy to reason is a Senate that mandates supermajorities to approve all public policy. If the chamber operated the way it was designed and intended to operate -- the way every legislative body on the planet functions -- it could approve legislation to deal with the climate crisis. Instead, with a Senate featuring 59 Democrats, Inhofe's stupidity rules the day. The consequences will be severe. History will not be kind. —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
THERE'S THAT 'I' WORD AGAIN.... The far-right Washington Times published two op-eds, on the same page, on the same day, demanding the impeachment of President Obama. One was from the perpetually deranged Jeffrey Kuhner, who insisted, "Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall." The other was from Tom Tancredo, the former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, and apparent Colorado gubernatorial candidate.
Keep in mind, Fox News found this insanity worth promoting. All of this, of course, brings me back to a point that I continue to ponder -- how seriously are Republicans prepared to take this whole impeachment idea? Obviously, President Obama hasn't committed any crimes, and there are no sane reasons for anyone to try to impeach him. But House Republicans have been known to take some stupendously crazy steps, so it's hardly unreasonable to ask now -- before the election. Remember, throughout 2006, when Republicans realized that Democrats had a very good shot at reclaiming the congressional majority, one of the single most common GOP attacks before the elections was that Dems would try to impeach Bush and/or Cheney if they were in the majority. The talk was so common that Democratic leaders, much to the chagrin for the party's base, declared unequivocally before the election that presidential impeachment was "off the table." So, are Republicans prepared to also take impeachment off the table in advance of these midterm elections? Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) has raised the specter of impeachment. So has Michele Bachmann, who recently said, "Everywhere I go, people ask me, 'Michele, can we impeach the president?'" Not surprisingly, Fox News is on board, too. Now, the Washington Times is running multiple op-eds on the subject. Is it on the table for 2011 or not? Voters should know what to expect from the next Congress. At this point, there's no reason for the GOP to avoid the question -- they're the ones who brought it up, and apparently keep bringing it up. So, what's it going to be? —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (67)
THE GOP'S BACK-DOOR REPEAL SCHEME.... Congressional Republicans still like to talk up the idea of "repealing" the Affordable Care Act, but no one takes this especially seriously. Even if the GOP claimed a House majority next year, Republicans could huff and puff, but they couldn't blow the law down. They'd need 60 votes in the Senate and a Republican president. At least in 2011, they'll have neither. But notice that GOP rhetoric of late has emphasized a related-but-separate point. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) this week continued to blather on about "repeal and replace," but he also told attendees to a town-hall meeting that he has a back-up plan. If repeal fails, Boehner said, "They're not going to get one dime from us to hire these new federal employees to run this." This might sound like hollow bravado, but it's important. I alluded to this last weekend, and today Brian Beutler fills in the gaps with an important report.
Norm Ornstein told Brian, "In theory [they] could cut the funding 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent. The problem is, you could do a lot of damage in a lot of different places." That could include Republicans deciding to "refuse to fund the entire Labor-HHS appropriations bill, or .. .pass an appropriation for Labor-HHS that does not include any funds for implementation of the health care plan." Why haven't we heard about this before? In part because it has no modern precedent. After passage of milestone legislation like Social Security and Medicare, Republicans probably would have loved to try to defund the programs, but a) there were still GOP moderates at the time; and b) voters didn't reward Republicans by giving them control after these bedrock programs became law. We'll see how all of this shakes out -- there's still a chance Republicans won't get a majority in either chamber -- but I wouldn't be too surprised if this pushed a Democratic White House and a GOP House to an impasse that could, as we talked about on Sunday, produce a government shutdown, a la 1995. —Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
KARL ROVE AND A FEW BILLIONAIRES WALK INTO A BAR.... About a month ago, a right-wing outfit called American Crossroads, created 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. While the figure prompted some guffaws, the delight on the left was short-lived -- because that initial fundraising report proved to be misleading. Rove's operation has actually collected $4.7 million since its launch, and a spinoff entity called American Crossroads GPS pulled in $5.1 million in June. All of these resources will go towards smearing key Democratic candidates over the next 100 days. American Crossroads GPS can legally hide its donors, while the regular ol' American Crossroads is required to report on its contributions and expenditures. So, while secrecy rules the day for the spinoff operation, Justin Elliott reports on who's filling the coffers of Rove's original campaign operation.
When Rove's attack entity was launched, it was billed as a "grassroots" effort. If you count for conservative, billionaire oil men as "grassroots," then American Crossroads is living up to its billing. Also note, the original idea was for the outfit to raise $50 million for anti-Democratic attack ads. Kenneth Vogel reported this week, the goal was likely be easily surpassed: "A spokesman on Tuesday said American Crossroads GPS, combined with its parent group, intended to raise a combined total of 'approximately $50 million' to attack Democrats and boost Republicans headed into the 2010 midterm elections. But that seems to be a downgrading of ambitions, given that when American Crossroads publicly launched it boasted that it would raise between $50 million and $60 million, while the spin-off has set a budget of $43 million, according to the 'concept paper.'" Democrats can take some comfort in the RNC's humiliating problems, but Rove and his cohorts are in a position to make up the difference. They won't legally be able to coordinate with the parties, but they'll be smearing Democrats relentlessly over the next couple of months, thanks to unchecked and unlimited contributions from billionaires to a shadowy GOP operation. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
MADDOW 1, O'REILLY 0.... On Wednesday night's episode, Rachel Maddow talked about Fox News' role in the Shirley Sherrod matter. "This is what Fox News does," she explained. "This is how they are different from other news organizations. Just like the ACORN controversy, Fox knows they have a role in this dance. That's not new; that's not actually even interesting about this scandal. Fox does what Fox does." Bill O'Reilly responded on his Fox News program, "Which is kick your network's butt every single night, madam. And you have to be kidding me with this 'fake ACORN scandal' stuff? Unbelievable. Do you live in this country?" Rachel responded on the air last night. If you haven't seen it, you should. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Here's the kicker: "Because when you got all 'kicked your network's butt' and 'madam' on me, you really weren't trying to tout your network's ratings. You were trying to take the attention off me saying that your network, Fox News, continually crusades on flagrantly bogus stories designed to make white Americans fear black Americans -- which Fox News most certainly does for a political purpose, even if it upends the lives of individuals like Shirley Sherrod, even as it frays the fabric of the nation, and even as it makes the American dream more of a dream and less of a promise. "You can insult us all you want about television ratings, Mr. O'Reilly, and you'll be right that yours are bigger -- for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one watches us at all except for my mom and my girlfriend and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters, and that would be the facts, your highness." —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (84)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In an entertaining twist in Colorado, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) has delivered an ultimatum to the GOP's two gubernatorial candidates: if they're trailing in the polls in mid-August, they should agree to drop out and let him jump in. If they're inclined to ignore him, Tancredo has said he'll run as a third-party candidate in the fall. * The DCCC reserves television time in 40 House districts: "The Democrats' strategy to preserve their House majority became clearer Thursday as the party made a $28 million investment in television advertising for the final weeks of the fall campaign, a plan that is designed to build a firewall to protect freshmen and longtime incumbents." * In Florida's crazy primaries, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rick Scott leading Bill McCollum in the Republican gubernatorial primary, 43% to 29%. * Speaking of Florida, it's a Rasmussen poll so take the results with a grain of salt, but the pollster shows Marco Rubio (R) narrowly leading Charlie Crist (I) if Kendrick Meek is the Democratic nominee, but Crist narrowly leading Rubio if Jeff Greene is the Democratic nominee. * There's a crowded field of Republicans running for the Senate in West Virginia -- as of late yesterday, the field had 10 candidates -- but none are expected to be able to defeat Gov. Joe Manchin (D) in November. * In Kentucky, a Braun Research poll shows Rand Paul (R) with a narrow lead over Jack Conway (D) in the U.S. Senate race, 41% to 38%. * In Arizona's Republican Senate primary, J.D. Hayworth has a new attack ad, going after Sen. John McCain's previous support for a bipartisan immigration package, having worked with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on a comprehensive bill. The ad has the advantage of being true. * And in Kansas, The Hutchinson News endorsed Tracey Mann's (R) congressional campaign in advance of his primary, but that was before the paper's editorial board realized he "questions the citizenship of President Barack Obama despite evidence that is irrefutable to most objective, rational people." The paper has since decided to "withdraw that endorsement." —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
STEVE KING'S 'DEFAULT MECHANISM'.... Rep. Steve King (R) has repeatedly accused President Obama of harboring some kind of anti-white animus. As the right-wing Iowan sees it, the president has a "default mechanism" that "breaks down on the side of favoring the minority." This week, on a talk-radio show, King continued to push this line -- and the rhetorical envelope.
So, if I'm hearing King right, he's arguing that the USDA hired Shirley Sherrod because the agency perceived her as a racist. He wasn't kidding. On a related note, King was also on Fox News yesterday, talking about immigration policy. He'd been part of a committee hearing where faith-based groups made a religiously-based argument in support of a comprehensive immigration plan. King was unimpressed. (thanks to D.B. for the heads-up)
King seems to be arguing here that we can't pass comprehensive immigration reform -- because it's unbiblical. Or something. I can't help but wonder how much power and influence this nut will have if there's a House Republican majority next year. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
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 weeks without new revelations surrounding his exaggerated past. The bad news is, the streak ended today. Kirk -- if that is his real name -- has experienced a humiliating couple of months. 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. Today, the Chicago Tribune finds yet another Kirk story that doesn't hold up. (thanks to reader R.G.)
Look, I don't much care what happened to Kirk as a 16-year-old. He's described this "as one of the most important events" of his entire life, and I'm sure it was traumatic. 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 meaningless. 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. It seems, in other words, Kirk can't seem to help himself when it comes to telling tall tales. How voters are supposed to find Mark Kirk trustworthy going forward remains a mystery. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE.... What's become of the Senate energy bill is a profound disappointment to anyone who takes policy seriously. It's a shell of its former self, and it's painful to see this rare opportunity to make meaningful progress slip away. It's not that the legislation's remaining provisions are worthless -- there's some decent stuff in there, including Home Star -- but the bill needed to include at least some kind of cap-and-trade and renewable energy standards. It won't. While there's still some talk about taking another bite at this apple before the next (more hostile) Congress, realistically, most participants in this debate seem pretty certain that nothing more will happen. As such, the circular firing squad is already starting to take aim. David Roberts noted that as "frustrated" as he is with Democratic leaders for coming up far short, they're not ultimately to blame.
Agreed. In fact, conservatives aren't just rejecting a sound idea -- they're rejecting their own idea. David Leonhardt noted yesterday, "The sad paradox is that cap and trade -- which trusts in the efficiency of markets -- was originally a Republican policy." The right used to consider cap-and-trade a reasonable, market-based mechanism that was far preferable to command-and-control directives that Republicans found offensive. The idea was embraced by H.W. Bush to reduce acid rain -- and it worked. But the same mechanism has remained popular with Republicans until very recently. The political world seems to have forgotten this, but the official position of the McCain/Palin Republican presidential ticket, not even two years ago, was to support cap-and-trade. Not just in theory, either. The official campaign website in 2008 told Americans that John McCain and Sarah Palin "will establish ... a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions." McCain/Palin's official position added, "A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels." So, is all hope lost? When it comes to legislating in 2010, probably. But one of the factors driving the debate on the Hill has been the EPA option hanging over the negotiations like the sword of Damocles: if lawmakers fail to act, the administration will. It's what gives Joe Klein some hope.
The sooner 60 senators wrap their heads around this, the better. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
INVESTIGATING IS EASIER THAN GOVERNING.... The political world may not fully appreciate just how ugly it might be next year.
To be sure, it was farcical on the Hill in the mid- to late-'90s. Rep. Dan Burton (R) of Indiana and his House committee on administrative oversight launched pointless investigations into every wild-eyed Clinton-related accusation unhinged activists could manufacture. And I mean "every" quite literally. In one instance, Burton held hearings -- for 10 days -- on the Clintons' Christmas card list. In another, Burton fired a bullet into a "head-like object" -- reportedly a melon -- in his backyard to test his conspiracy theories about Vince Foster. Over the last six years of Bill Clinton's presidency, Burton's committee unilaterally issued 1,052 subpoenas -- that's not a typo -- to investigate baseless allegations of misconduct. That translates to an average of a politically-inspired subpoena every other day for six consecutive years, including weekends, holidays, and congressional recesses. A Republican House majority in the next Congress would likely take this even further. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has already made clear that he intends to make Burton look like a meek, submissive toady, leaving "corporate America" alone, so he can attack the White House relentlessly. For that matter, let's also not forget that some Republicans, including two members of Congress, have raised the specter of presidential impeachment once there's a GOP majority. One of them is Bachmann -- who thinks "all" Republicans should do in the next Congress is launch witch hunts. As Paul Krugman noted recently, "[W]e'll be having hearings over accusations of corruption on the part of Michelle Obama's hairdresser, janitors at the Treasury, and Larry Summers's doctor's dog." If this seems like a joke, now would be a good time to adjust your expectations. —Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
REVERBERATIONS FROM THE RNC'S HIDDEN-DEBT PROBLEM.... Other news stories this week helped keep the Republican National Committee's problems off the front page. That's a silver lining, however, to an otherwise massive cloud. We learned on Wednesday that the RNC's own treasurer believes the party deliberately failed to report more than $7 million in debt to the Federal Election Commission recently, as part of a scheme to make the RNC's finances look better than they really are. Hiding off-book debts is not only illegal, it also points to more system problems at party headquarters. The Republican National Committee's disarray -- ABC characterized it as a "civil war" -- comes at a bad time for the party, and Marc Ambinder reports that Republican strategists fear the "chaos" at the RNC could lead to electoral consequences.
Remember, as we talked about the other day, what makes this story serious is the fact that it has multiple angles, all of them bad news for the RNC. We have (1) the in-fighting among RNC officials, with the chairman going up against his own treasurer; (2) potentially illegal accounting tricks; (3) weak RNC fundraising in advance of a critical election season that necessitated the illegal accounting tricks; (4) another distracting scandal for Steele to deal with, just a few weeks after the last one; and (5) the fact that the controversy itself steps all over the Republican message of fiscal responsibility. Oh, and for good measure, also note that if the FEC penalizes the party for its accounting tricks -- which seems likely -- the RNC would likely have to pay fines before the election. That's money the party would much prefer to spend on competitive races. There's a reason Democrats tend to look at Michael Steele as the greatest party leader of all time. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
SENATE MOVES ON SMALL BUSINESSES, WAR FUNDING.... It was a busy night in the Senate, and it's worth taking a moment to review what transpired. First, senators finally secured 60 votes for a key measure in the small-business incentives bill.
The vote on the measure was 60 to 39, with two Republicans -- Sens. George LeMieux of Florida and George Voinovich of Ohio -- joining Democrats in support. The Senate still has to break the Republican filibuster of the entire legislation, and the GOP still hopes to undermine the effort through pointless amendments, but the overall odds have improved considerably over the last 24 hours. The bill includes $12 billion in tax breaks for small businesses and an expansion of existing government lending programs, in addition to the community banks provision. Soon after that vote, the Senate took up a war funding measure passed by the House. The package included the must-pass spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the House included $23 billion in additional domestic funding -- including $10 billion in aid to states, intended to save thousands of teachers' jobs. (The White House strongly disapproved, because the House paid for the funding by cutting the budget for education reforms.) To keep the House version alive, the Senate needed to find 60 votes. It got 46. In the process, the Senate told the House it has to pass the stripped-down $59 billion package, lacking all of the additional domestic funding. It's unclear how the House will respond to the take-it-or-leave-it message, but if the chamber balks at the Senate version, the Pentagon is going to be put in an awfully tricky position. As for the funding to save thousands of teachers' jobs, Senate Dems still intend to get this done through a separate effort, but it's not clear how or when, or whether it'll be paid for. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
July 22, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Not exactly what response teams in the Gulf need right now: "BP's ruptured well will remain capped if ships evacuate the Gulf of Mexico because of a looming storm, the federal government's oil spill chief said Thursday. Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said growing confidence in the cap's security convinced scientists it was safe to leave it unmonitored for a few days." * In the meantime, China is dealing with a massive oil spill of its own. * As of 5:15 p.m. (ET), the bill to extend unemployment benefits was literally in the car, on the way to the White House. * Last week, the new jobless claims were encouraging. This week, not so much: "New U.S. claims for jobless benefits climbed more steeply than anticipated last week, the latest sign that the moribund labor market is struggling to recover." * The signing of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) shouldn't get lost in the shuffle today: "In a bid to show voters his administration is concerned with reducing wasteful government spending, President Obama signed a bill aimed at cutting improper payments to individuals, organizations, and contractors." * The next step in the two-year review into Charlie Rangel: "The House ethics committee has launched a separate panel to determine whether Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has violated House ethics rules. The panel, called an adjudicatory subcommittee, will hold a public organizational meeting July 29." * Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised Wall Street bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren today, saying she'd be "a very effectively leader" of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. He added, "She is one of the most effective advocates of reform in the country." * The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been fighting tooth and nail against initiatives launched by the Obama White House -- but it's the USCOC that keeps losing. * If Senate Republicans block ratification of the New START treaty, "American credibility on nuclear issues would evaporate," and every country that's signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty would ask itself, "If the U.S. is unwilling to live up to its commitments, why should we live up to ours?" * Ugh: "Nonprofit BlueCross and BlueShield health plans in several states, including Tennessee, stockpiled billions of dollars during the past decade, yet continued to hit consumers with hefty premium increases that could have been reduced in some cases, a new consumer study contends." * Given the interest in the Obamas' travel plans: "Before beginning their long-planned summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard, America's first family will head to Florida's oil-stricken Gulf Coast." * One of the unfortunate side effects of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) siding with Republicans on Wall Street reform? He wanted the bill to get stronger, but Feingold's efforts inadvertently made it weaker. * Megyn Kelly, still confused about current events. * Welcome transparency: "Soon, families might have a slightly better idea what they might actually pay to attend college." * If I haven't mention it lately, Sam Seder is a very clever man. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND, BUT NOT IN EQUAL AMOUNTS.... Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized to Shirley Sherrod yesterday, and today she spent some time chatting with President Obama, who expressed "regret" over this week's events, and urged her to continue "her hard work on behalf of those in need." At this point, Sherrod says she's unlikely to return to the USDA, but time will tell. The New York Times' report noted the bigger picture: "Pretty much everyone else [other than Sherrod] had egg on his or her face -- from the conservative bloggers and pundits who first pushed the inaccurate story to Mr. Vilsack, who looked stricken as he told reporters he had offered Ms. Sherrod a new job that would give her a 'unique opportunity' to help the agency." That seems like a fair assessment, though it's probably worth emphasizing the fact that some faces should have more egg right now than others. I'm not going to defend the administration's handling of this matter. On Monday, faced with a race-related story that the media was likely to obsess over, officials panicked and made a rash decision without getting all the facts. At the time, it probably seemed like a smart political move -- react quickly and move on -- but it backfired. The desire to quickly put out a fire before it spread led to an embarrassing overreaction. I am, however, inclined to defend what the administration did next. Less than a day after forcing Sherrod's ouster, everyone from Vilsack to the president's press secretary had admitted publicly that the administration made a mistake. Sherrod deserved an apology, and she got one. Within 36 hours of the forced resignation, Sherrod was on the phone with the president directly. Ideally, an administration avoids making dumb mistakes, but it matters how an administration corrects those missteps once they happen. In this case, there's something to be said for the president's team doing the right thing -- acknowledging the mistake quickly, sincerely apologizing, and swiftly trying to put things right. We had an administration for eight years that never admitted an error, and always found someone else to blame, no matter what. This administration is taking a more mature, responsible approach, and it's a sign of progress. But the blame the administration deserves pales in comparison to some of the other players in this mess. Josh Marshall's item this morning rings true.
The administration's overreaction, to be sure, matters, and I can only hope officials have learned a valuable lesson here about the media and smear campaigns. But to make Obama and/or Vilsack out to be the principal culprit in this fiasco is to badly miss the point. —Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)
LEFT WITH NO CHOICE, DEMS TO PUSH 'NARROW' ENERGY BILL.... The Senate Democratic leadership, looking at the pre-August schedule, has said the chamber would take up an energy bill next week. The question has long been what kind of energy bill it'd be, how comprehensive it'd be, and whether it'd be any good. We got our answer this afternoon. It was a disheartening one.
The "admittedly narrow" legislation won't be completely useless; it just won't do what we need it to do. The plan is to have this bill include new oil company regulations, cover spill liability issues, reinvest in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, put some money into manufacturing of natural gas vehicles, and create some jobs through Home Star (the program formally known as Cash for Caulkers). The list of key provisions that aren't in this bill isn't short -- any kind of cap-and-trade, renewable energy standards, etc. -- but the leadership is convinced it just doesn't have a choice. "We know where we are," Reid told reporters. "We don't have the votes." So, is that it? Is the congressional effort to combat global warming dead? Probably. To be sure, leading Democrats tried to suggest otherwise. Reid told reporters, "This is not the only energy legislation we are going to do." Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who's shown tremendous leadership on this issue, said he still thinks it's "possible" to find a Republican willing to do the right thing, and that the narrow bill that will be considered next week "does not replace comprehensive energy legislation." In fact, Kerry said he spoke to President Obama this afternoon and he told the senator "point blank that he is committed to working in these next days at a more intensive pace together with Carol Browner and other members of the administration to help bring together the ability to find 60 votes for that comprehensive legislation." But one can only put on a brave face for so long. With very little time, and unbreakable Republican obstructionism, the odds are probably close to zero. If the Senate were to vote on a comprehensive bill, it'd probably pass -- such a bill already passed the House last summer -- but the GOP simply will not allow such a vote. Unless there's an unexpected breakthrough after August, the future of energy/climate legislation will a) depend on voters expanding the Democrats' congressional majorities this year, an exceedingly unlikely scenario; b) be put off for several years, at a minimum. —Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
UNEMPLOYMENT AID FINALLY EXTENDED.... It never should have taken this long, but at least it's done.
Here's the final roll call in the House. Note that 31 Republicans broke party ranks and supported the extension, while 10 House Democrats -- 9 of them Blue Dogs -- voted in opposition. The measure extends benefits through Nov. 30, at which point the fight can begin anew. As glad as I am to see this task completed, it's worth noting that we just witnessed a months-long dispute over the bare minimum -- unemployment benefits. This bill should have included aid to states, a modest extension of the $25-a-week Federal Additional Compensation, and long-sought Medicaid funding, among other things. These additional provisions were in the bill, and should have been protected, but had to be scuttled -- "moderate" Republicans wouldn't let the Senate vote on the bill unless all of these additional provisions were removed entirely. Have I mentioned lately that our legislative process doesn't seem to work? On a more encouraging note, Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) said today he's prepared to vote with Dems to break a GOP filibuster of the small-business incentives bill, including the $30 billion lending program that would make credit available to small businesses through local banks, which we talked about earlier. With LeMieux on board, the bill's prospects have improved greatly. —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
ARE REPUBLICANS ON BOARD WITH RYAN'S RADICAL ROADMAP?.... While most congressional Republicans seem to be allergic to offering an alternative agenda in advance of the midterm elections, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, released a blueprint he calls a "roadmap." His GOP colleagues seem to generally approve of the plan, but they're terrified to say so. Derek Thompson reports that Ryan explained to a Brookings audience yesterday that congressional Republicans are simply too worried about how the public would respond if the party truly embraced the plan.
I'm inclined to give Paul Ryan, a devoted fan of Ayn Rand's novels, at least some credit for putting his beliefs on paper, and subjecting them to public scrutiny. He has a plan to radically transform governmental institutions and Americans' way of life, and he's not afraid to say so. Indeed, many on the right are on board with the radical Ryan plan. Jonah Goldberg loves it, and when it comes to deficit reduction, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) described Ryan's proposed $1.3 trillion in potential cuts as "a pretty good list of options." So, why are Republicans being told to "stay away from this"? Why, by Ryan's own estimation, is his party deliberately putting politics above principle? Because if the public came to think of the radical Ryan roadmap as the party's official approach to budget issues, the GOP would lose practically every federal election for at least a generation. But in a way, the party's cowardice is a real shame. Ryan's gone to the trouble of presenting a plan, and encouraging his party to support it. The plan raises taxes on everyone except the wealthy; it privatizes Social Security; it eliminates Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and most of Medicaid; and it wouldn't actually get rid of the deficit anyway. The whole plan offers a breathtaking vision of how the government would operate in the 21st century if conservative Republicans had their way. Ryan thinks it should be part of the debate -- and he's right! In fact, Republicans expect to make Ryan the chairman of the House Budget Committee six months from now, where he'll have a chance to do some real damage to Americans institutions. Forget what the GOP "pollsters are saying." Are Republicans on board with Ryan's roadmap or not? Is his plan a reflection of what GOP candidates would do with their majority? Shouldn't voters have a chance to hear from Republicans about this before there's an election? These need not be rhetorical questions. The leading GOP official on budget issues has a plan. It's not unreasonable to think every Republican candidate should say, before November, whether they think it's a plan worth pursuing. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
BOEHNER TRIES, AND FAILS, TO OFFER POLICY DETAILS.... A couple of weeks ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spoke to the Washington Post's Dan Balz about what voters could expect from a Republican-led chamber. It didn't go especially well -- Boehner refused to offer any kind of details to back up his platitudes. Yesterday, at a Christian Science Monitor luncheon, Boehner tried to offer a little more substance, but for anyone who takes policy matters at all seriously, it was a sad display.
Let's take Boehner's approach to job creation one point at a time. 1. The would-be Speaker thinks the Affordable Care Act is an "impediment for employment," in part because it "will it ruin the best health care system in the world." This is idiotic. There's evidence to suggest the ACA will create millions of jobs, and no evidence of the law discouraging job creation. Indeed, the law has barely even started -- what Boehner wants is the old, dysfunctional system that wasn't doing any favors for the economy. 2. Boehner thinks saying "no cap and trade" will help create jobs. In reality, the Democratic energy/climate proposal would create a lot of jobs in a growing global industry, but there's also the question of logic -- Boehner thinks opposing a policy that does not yet exist will create jobs. In other words, a key part of Boehner's jobs agenda is to ... absolutely nothing. 3. Boehner's convinced that Bush's failed economic policies, if we just leave the tax rates in place, will eventually work. Sure, they failed miserably in the last decade -- worst modern presidency for job creation, massive deficits, weak economic growth -- but why should failure discourage repetition? I have several concerns when it comes to John Boehner's role as a congressional leader, but near the top of the list is the fact that he doesn't seem to know anything about public policy. He's presumably had time to read up on such things, but he's chosen not to. Worse, Boehner seems to think he knows quite a bit about these issues, despite his apparent bewilderment. I care that Boehner is wrong about practically everything, but at least one can have a reasonable debate with knowledgeable people with a different perspective. With Boehner, it seems he's just clueless, uninterested and ignorant about the basics of contemporary policy disputes. Can anyone think of a time they've heard John Boehner speak intelligently about any subject? Ever? Can anyone identify an issue where Boehner has demonstrated even the slightest bit of expertise? Or even knowledge? If he's the best House Republicans have to offer, we're all in very deep trouble. —Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
DGA UNVEILS 'NEVER SURRENDER' VIDEO.... The Democratic Governors Association hinted this morning that it was launching a new grassroots effort today, as the election-year drive grows more intense. I just didn't expect it to be this amusing. This video, which the DGA press release concedes is "provocative," features a great movie montage of inspirational moments. The clip, called "Never Surrender," includes scenes from Animal House, Network, Lord of the Rings, 300, Miracle, Cool Runnings, League of their Own, Rocky, and perhaps most amusingly, a line from Die Hard 2. "Never Surrender" will be formally unveiled at Netroots Nation 2010 in Las Vegas. It's all part of what the DGA's "Fight the Right" initiative. In a press release, DGA executive director Nathan Daschle said, "This is a volatile political environment -- all the more reason to rally our base. Today's Republican party is dominated by the Tea Party-Sarah Palin fringe, which is forcing candidates further and further to the right. Governors are traditionally immune to ideological purity contests, but today's GOP won't accept anything short of rigid adherence to an out-of-touch dogma. All this at a time when the stakes in the 37 governors' races this fall couldn't be higher -- they'll affect Congressional majorities, redistricting, the 2012 Presidential race, not to mention the lives of hardworking men and women." If you're interested, you might want to check out the video sooner rather than later -- if any of the movie studios happen to notice the clip and raise a fuss about copyright issues, the DGA might not be able to keep "Never Surrender" up very long. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)
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. * In Connecticut, former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) was running for the Senate, but said he'd end his bid if he failed to secure the nomination of the Connecticut Republican Party. Then he changed his mind. Then he changed his mind again and suspended his campaign. Now, Simmons has changed his mind once more, and has begun airing campaign ads this week. His primary against former wrestling executive Linda McMahon will be on August 10. * In Colorado, Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck raised a few eyebrows yesterday when he told a voter he deserved support "because I do not wear high heels." Buck said his comment was in response to his primary opponent, Jane Norton, running an ad attacking his attacks through independent groups. "You'd think he'd be man enough to do it himself," she says in the ad. * It's Rasmussen, so take the results with a grain of salt, but the pollster's latest results in Kentucky show a U.S. Senate race that's staying largely the same. Right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) leads state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) in the poll, 49% to 41%. The results are nearly identical to other Rasmussen data from the last several weeks. * The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is running attack ads against Rep. Joe Sestak's (D) Senate campaign in Pennsylvania, but two Pittsburgh-area television stations have agreed to stop airing the spot, concluding that the criticisms are inaccurate. * Gov. Joe Manchin (D) is the favorite to win this year's Senate special election, but it looks like he'll have a primary opponent. Former West Virginia Secretary of State Ken Hechler (D) filed to run this week, but it's unclear how serious Hechler is -- the man is 95 years old. * In Kansas, Rep. Jerry Moran continues to lead Rep. Todd Tiahrt in their Republican Senate primary. The latest SurveyUSA poll shows Moran up by double digits, 50% to 36%. * In Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) is facing a primary challenge from right-wing lawyer Joe Miller, but support from the Palins apparently isn't helping. A new poll from Anchorage-based pollster Ivan Moore shows Murkowski leading by a two-to-one margin, 62% to 30%. The primary is on August 24. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
REMEMBER THE PUBLIC OPTION?.... Even after Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) forced the removal of the public option from the health care reform package last year, proponents of the idea said the setback was temporary. The popular measure, generating competition between private and public insurance, would return, again and again. As it turns out, it's returning right now.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact it does. When policymakers were weighing provisions of the legislation that would produce savings, one of the most effective measures was always the public option. For conservatives, however, the debate was always more about ideology than pragmatism. But if deficit reduction continues to dominate much of the public discussion, public option advocates have a new pitch: the CBO believes the idea could save the federal government $68 billion between 2014 an 2020. Deficit hawks consistently say lawmakers are going to have to accept some choices they don't want to make in order to get the deficit under control. Well, what do they have to say about $68 billion in savings from an idea that most of the country consistently loved during the health care debate? Even proponents don't expect action on this in the coming months, but Woolsey vowed to keep fighting for the idea. Good. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
THE HOUSE TEA PARTY CAUCUS GETS TO WORK.... There's been ample evidence of late that the overlap between the so-called Tea Party "movement" and the Republican Party's far-right base is overwhelming. They are, in effect, one and the same. The intersection of Tea Party politics and Republican politics became even more dramatic yesterday, with the formal launch of the House Tea Party Caucus, led by frightening right-wing Minnesotan, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R). Dana Milbank had a good report on the kickoff event.
As the overlap becomes formalized, Republicans may want to remember what it is the party is enveloping. At yesterday's gathering, Mark Meckler, a leader of a group called the Tea Party Patriots, tried to distance their efforts from "fringe" elements. Soon after, speakers at the rally accused Democrats of "21st-century Marxism," compared President Obama to Hugo Chavez, and complained bitterly about "socialism." That, we're supposed to believe, isn't "fringe" at all. We also learned yesterday precisely what Republicans/Tea Partiers are concerned about when it comes to their collective public image: "Members of the freshly minted House Tea Party Caucus spent their first day trying to quash accusations that they represent a racist movement." Given the frequency with which it came up, the right-wing activists seem pretty sensitive about the allegations. (One speaker insisted, "We are not terrorists," though I'm not sure anyone has accused this crowd of terrorism.) As for the caucus itself, as of late yesterday, the House Tea Party Caucus reportedly has 29 members, with a membership list that's nearly identical to that of the right-wing Republican Study Committee. There is, however, some ongoing controversy on this front -- some of the members included on Bachmann's list of caucus members hadn't formally given their permission to be included in the group. Sounds like they're off to a good start. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
AT ARM'S LENGTH WITH SHARRON ANGLE.... Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, has gone to great lengths to avoid media scrutiny since winning her primary campaign, at one point literally running away from a journalist asking about her public statements. In recent weeks, Angle has been a little more willing to answer questions, but only from outlets like far-right talk radio, Fox News, and radical TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. She conceded last week that she only wants to talk to media that will let her beg for cash on the air. If an outlet doesn't mind being used by Angle as part of a fundraising ploy, she's willing to chat. It was a pleasant surprise, then, to see that the Angle campaign scheduled a press conference yesterday, and invited reporters. The bigger surprise, though, came when the candidate refused to take questions.
Maybe Angle's confused about what a "press conference" is. Speaking of Angle, while the Senate hopeful keeps the media at arm's length, she's still palling around with Mark Williams and his notorious Tea Party Express, whose racism has been denounced by other groups and leaders within the "movement." It was Williams and his group that effectively made Angle a competitive candidate, and as such, her campaign refuses to denounce his ugly, divisive rhetoric. Indeed, as of this morning, Williams' Tea Party Express is still raising money for Angle -- and Angle's still accepting the support. Angle won't make time for professional reporters' questions, but she will make time for some scurrilous characters that even other conservatives want nothing to do with. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
CONRAD SIDES WITH GOP ON TAX BREAKS FOR WEALTHY.... It's become common enough to be predictable -- lawmakers who claim to be deeply concerned with the deficit also take a firm stand in support of tax breaks for the wealthy, regardless of what it would do to the deficit. Alas, it's not just Republicans playing this annoying game.
Conrad did not say tax cuts would pay for themselves -- he's not quite as irresponsible as his Republican colleagues -- but Reuters' report added that Conrad wants lawmakers to "find offsetting revenue to pay for the lower rates for wealthier Americans." There's some deep confusion on display here. Conrad is worried about the health of the economy, which makes sense. He also wants to cut federal spending to offset tax cuts for the wealthy, which doesn't make sense. But in the larger context, Conrad's position, which is apparently also endorsed by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), another pseudo deficit hawk, signals more trouble for common sense in the Senate. It's tough enough going up against a united Republican caucus with economic priorities that range from confused to illiterate; center-right Democrats siding with the GOP makes matters considerably worse. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
WHEN THE RIGHT HOLDS AMERICA TO LOW STANDARDS.... Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has -- big surprise -- declared his opposition to a proposed Muslim community center a couple of blocks from 9/11's Ground Zero in Manhattan. That, in and of itself, isn't especially interesting. It's why Gingrich opposes the Cordoba House that matters. From his blog post on the subject:
So, by Newt Gingrich's estimation, Saudi Arabian officials are wrong to squelch religious liberty in their country -- so we should be equally wrong in ours. Gingrich sees Saudi Arabia discriminating and showing a lack of tolerance for spiritual diversity and, in effect, concludes, "Let's follow their lead." This conservative worldview comes up from time to time, and it always amazes me. You'll recall, for example, that during the debate over whether the U.S. should utilize torture -- that there was even a debate continues to be remarkable -- it was not uncommon for the right to demand a single standard. If terrorists and America's enemies used torture, the argument went, then we should, too. Since the problem with this line of thinking is apparently not as obvious as it should be, let's make this clear: the United States is supposed to be held to the highest standards. Our country should strive to be a beacon of hope and liberty, a shining light for others to aspire to. We're not supposed to lower ourselves to the levels of those we find offensive. This continues to be a glaring point of contention between the left and right. Liberals see terrorists engaging in torture and authoritarian governments denying their people the freedom of religion, and we say, "We're better than that." The right sees the same landscape and thinks, "No, we're not." For America to endorse the construction of the Cordoba House would be a reminder to the world of how we, unlike less-free countries, celebrate our diversity and refuse to treat our neighbors as second-class citizens. It's genuinely sad that Gingrich and his ilk prefer to see us aim lower as a nation. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)
JOBLESS AID PASSES, BUT WILL SENATE GOP KILL HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESSES?.... It was a very busy afternoon in the U.S. Senate yesterday, with a flurry of important votes. Members considered a measure to block the Justice Department from pursuing legal action against Arizona's anti-immigrant law, but rejected it. Likewise, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pushed a measure to permanently end the estate tax, which also failed. Perhaps most importantly, the Senate was finally able to pass an extension of unemployment benefits, with a 59 to 39 vote. The House is expected to approve the same measure today, and President Obama will sign it into law as quickly as the bill can reach his desk. So, what's next? A measure to help small businesses -- which Republicans are also trying to kill.
Yep, Republicans are fighting against a measure to help small businesses because it's more important to undermine Democrats than it is to help the economy. Indeed, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who isn't exactly a liberal firebrand, noted what appears to be plainly true -- that the GOP leadership wants to reject a measure to help the economy for purely political reasons. "I think Senator McConnell knows and believes this bill could actually create millions of jobs and doesn't want to give the president and Democrats credit for doing what we do, which is standing up for the middle class," Landrieu said. The main point of contention in the bill is a "$30 billion lending program that would make credit available to small businesses through local banks." It has broad Democratic support, and has been endorsed by the Independent Community Bankers of America and 29 state community banking associations. But Republicans said it's a deal-breaker -- not because the lending program wouldn't work, but because it reminds them of TARP. Even Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who's supposed to be one of the more reasonable ones, said she'd block a vote against relief for small businesses if it includes the lending program. Watching the Senate can be exceedingly unpleasant. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
July 21, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Latest from the Gulf: "BP has temporarily corked a relief tunnel deep beneath the sea floor as tropical rainstorms move toward the Gulf of Mexico. The tunnel will be used to blast mud and cement into BP's leaky well, hopefully sealing it off for good. But the threat of a tropical storm has prompted the oil giant to shut off the tunnel to keep it from being damaged." * Not exactly reassuring: "Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, told Congress on Wednesday that it would take 'a significant amount of time' to restore the 8.5 million jobs lost in the United States in 2008 and 2009, and warned that 'the economic outlook remains unusually uncertain.' He also warned that financial conditions, particularly the European sovereign debt crisis, had 'become less supportive of economic growth in recent months.'" * Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack held a press conference late this afternoon, apologizing to Shirley Sherrod and for the debacle. He's asked her to return to her job, and Sherrod is reportedly considering it. [Update: Vilsack has reportedly offered her a unique new position at the agency, not the position from which she was forced to resign.] * Eyeing Pyongyang: "The United States Wednesday unveiled new sanctions against North Korea after the sinking of a South Korean warship and said the attack could be the start of more provocations by the communist state." * I'd hoped for more, given the seriousness and scope of the scandal: "The Bush administration's Justice Department's actions were inappropriately political, but not criminal, when it fired a U.S. attorney in 2006, prosecutors said Wednesday in closing a two-year investigation without filing charges." * Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination picks up another GOP supporter -- Indiana's Richard Lugar. * Why would gunman Byron Williams have an interest in targeting the Tides Foundation? It's hard to say for sure at this point, but Glenn Beck talks about the foundation quite a bit. * Chait on the conservative pseudojournalist method. * More Americans are going to college, but more Americans are also starting to wonder if it's worth it. * The right is still working on Journolist conspiracies. In the process, they're making stuff up. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
SHERROD FLAP LEADS TO APOLOGY.... In a rarity, CNN aired the White House press briefing live this afternoon, entirely because of the one subject the press corps was most interested in. The landmark Wall Street reform bill being signed into law? The vote on unemployment benefits Republicans are still blocking? Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico? No, the story on the minds of political reporters is the firing of Shirley Sherrod. One of the things I find interesting about the media's coverage today is that it's not following the usual model. There tends to be a trend -- conservatives get worked up about something; Republicans make irresponsible allegations; and political reporters push the White House to respond. But in the Sherrod matter, Republicans aren't saying a word -- the media is interested because ... the media is interested. What's more, note how that interest is manifesting itself. The media isn't excoriating Breitbart, digging to find the original source of the video, or noting the racist themes in far-right attacks of late. Instead, it seems news outlets are fascinated by process, demanding to know who knew what when. Rather than quoting conservative Republicans in Congress going after the White House, the media has taken to highlighting concerns raised by liberal bloggers who are going after the White House. For what it's worth, the press briefing that got more attention than most featured a well-deserved apology.
Good move. I get the sense that many of those who've been critical of the administration's overreaction are looking for evidence that officials realize a mistake was made. The White House made that recognition clear. The press secretary also suggested that it's worth taking some time to consider how this mess happened in the first place -- and that includes reporters he was speaking to directly: "I think everybody has to go back and look at what has happened over the past 24 to 36 hours, and ask ourselves how we got into this. How did we not ask the right questions? How did you all not ask the right questions?" —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)
THE RNC, A 'CIVIL WAR,' AND A HIDDEN DEBT.... It's clearly a busy media day, with a variety of stories generating plenty of discussion, but the RNC's hidden-debt controversy is probably under-appreciated at this point. It has the potential to be a very big deal.
Now, we know that at least some of what Pullen is charging is already true -- the RNC had to file amended reports to explain previously unreported debt. But according to the RNC's own treasurer, Steele and others at party headquarters did this deliberately, allegedly going to literally criminal lengths to hide party debts and financial troubles. Ed Morrissey, a prominent conservative blogger, added, "If Pullen's claims turn out to be true, it's a potential disaster for the RNC and Republican candidates, and not just because of the restricted cash flow. The GOP has been arguing that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and reform." Right. What makes this story serious is the fact that it has multiple angles, all of them bad news for the RNC. We have (1) the in-fighting among RNC officials, with the chairman going up against his own treasurer; (2) potentially illegal accounting tricks; (3) weak RNC fundraising in advance of a critical election season that necessitated the illegal accounting tricks; (4) another distracting scandal for Steele to deal with, just a few weeks after the last one; and (5) the fact that the controversy itself steps all over the Republican message of fiscal responsibility. —Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
BREITBART'S VERSION OF REGRET.... There's been some talk about whether Andrew Breitbart would get around to apologizing for the Shirley Sherrod fiasco. It's even been a topic for conservatives -- Jonah Goldberg thinks Breitbart should apologize; David Frum predicts he won't. We got a better sense of Breitbart's perspective today when the right-wing media activist told MSNBC, "I feel bad that they made this about her, and I feel sorry that they made this about her. Watching how they've misconstrued, how the media has misconstrued the intention behind this, I do feel a sympathy for her plight." He added that he's "sympathetic" to the fact that the media "went after her and not after the NAACP." So, in Breitbart's mind, the media is to blame -- apparently because news outlets ran with the story that Breitbart gave them. David Kurtz calls the remarks "almost sociopathic." Simon Maloy labels Breitbart's response "pathological." These aren't unreasonable responses. Breitbart pushed a deliberately misleading video that went after Shirley Sherrod for no reason. He proceeded to label her a "racist" who "racially discriminates against a white farmer," and demanded that the NAACP "denounce the racism in the video." That, of course, would be the racism that didn't exist when listening to the remarks in context. Breitbart's racially-motivated media stunt cost Sherrod her job, at least for now. But he regrets that "they went after her"? That he said this with a straight face is disconcerting. —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
ANOTHER MILESTONE ACHIEVEMENT -- WALL STREET REFORM BECOMES LAW.... President Obama this morning signed into law the most sweeping reforms of the financial industry since the New Deal. In an 18-month stretch that includes a variety of historic achievements, Wall Street reform has to rank pretty high on the accomplishment list. Here's some video from this morning's bill-signing ceremony, and a link to some of the reasons the new law is so important. In addition to creating a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the new law strengthens the integrity of the industry in a wide variety of ways, including giving officials an ability to wind down failing firms without the need for taxpayer-financed bailouts -- an observation that drew sustained applause at the White House event today. As for that list of accomplishments, Wall Street reform now joins health care reform, an economy-saving Recovery Act, a long-sought overhaul of the nation's student-loan system, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, among other things, on the collection of breakthrough accomplishments of the last 18 months. As Rachel Maddow recently observed, "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." Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, who huddled with Wall Street lobbyists to try to kill the proposal, continue to insist that if they're given power, they'll repeal the new reform law and return to the regulatory structure that was in place for (and helped lead to) the 2008 crash that nearly collapsed the global financial system. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
A PERNICIOUS SHIFT TO AN ANNOYING TREND.... The notion that conservative outrages tend to be manufactured nonsense isn't new. The last 18 months has been filled with them. Remember how excited the right was about the Gerald Walpin firing? Or the time conservatives were convinced that the White House was closing car dealerships based on owners' political contributions? How about the time the right was apoplectic because the president urged kids to do well in school when last year's school year began? And who can forget when Republicans discovered job offers to congressional candidates and compared it Watergate? Inexplicably, several major news outlets responded to stories like these by insisting that the media should do more to take seriously the kind of stories and ideas that bubble up on conservative websites and talk radio. More recently, however, the larger trend has taken a turn for the worse. It's not just that the right gets worked up over stories that fall apart after minimal scrutiny -- though that's part of it -- it's also that the trumped up garbage is starting to get more focused. Kevin Drum raised an excellent point today:
This, by the way, coincided with leading Tea Party zealots blasting the NAACP as "racist," and a coordinated attack against Thurgood Marshall by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There have to be some decent folks on the right who are uncomfortable with this. I know RNC Chairman Michael Steele recently conceded his party relied on a racially-divisive "Southern Strategy" for at least four decades, and that animosity towards Barack Obama is exacerbated by race, but conservatives -- Fox News, GOP activists, prominent far-right media voices -- continue to push the boundaries of acceptable discourse here. We've gone from conservatives making up scurrilous nonsense to gin up excitement with far-right voters to conservatives making up racist nonsense to gin up excitement with far-right voters. And as the midterms draw closer, the ugliness seems to be intensifying. Where are the Republican grown-ups willing to say, "Enough"? —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)
WILL VOTERS RESPOND TO A PRO-GRIDLOCK MESSAGE?.... As Democratic strategists continue to push various campaign narratives to undercut Republicans ("Party of No," "Bush Republicans," "BP Republicans"), the congressional minority has a few ideas of its own.
Funny, these folks didn't seem to think "checks and balances" were necessary when there was a Republican Congress and Republican White House through most of the Bush/Cheney era. Nevertheless, if this seems vaguely familiar, it's because John McCain's (R) presidential campaign tried the same line two years ago -- only at that point, he said voters should elect a Republican president to serve as a check against the Democratic Congress. The key, the Republican ticket said at the time was to "market divided government more directly ... as part of a summation targeted at undecided independents." When Barack Obama won the highest popular vote margin for a non-incumbent in more than a half-century, it seemed clear McCain's gambit didn't work especially well. Maybe it'll find more favor in 2010, but I continue to find the argument odd. For one thing, it's not as if Congress has become some kind of rubber stamp for the Obama administration. The president has achieved some amazing legislative breakthroughs in the last year and a half, but none of the successes has been easy. For another, what the GOP argument is based on, in effect, is a pro-gridlock message. Republicans are saying people should vote for them, not because they're right, but because they'd make governing in Washington that much more difficult. The argument, in a nutshell, is: "Vote GOP so Washington can become considerably more dysfunctional and achieve far less. If you like partisan spats, government shutdowns, pointless investigations, and a federal system paralyzed by ideological piques, you'll love what happens when there's a Democratic president and a Republican Congress." As things currently stand, the federal lawmaking process already struggles badly to vote on legislation, staff the executive branch, fill the federal judiciary, and approve necessary treaties. The new Republican line hopes voters will want to actively make matters much worse. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
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. * To the disappointment of the Republican establishment, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) announced this morning that she will not run in a Senate special election this year. Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin, who launched his campaign yesterday, is now an even heavier favorite to replace the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D).* * In Georgia's gubernatorial primaries yesterday, former Gov. Roy Barnes (D) won his party's nod with 66% support, while former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel and former Rep. Nathan Deal will face off again in an Aug. 10 runoff. * In Nevada, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) with a narrow lead in his re-election bid, up by two over former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R), 48% to 46%. * The DCCC and NRCC both raised about $9 million in June, but the Democratic committee still enjoys a considerable lead when it comes to cash on hand. * In related news, when it comes to the Senate campaign committees, the DSCC raised over $7 million in June, compared to the NRSC's $4 million haul. When it comes to cash on hand, the DSCC has $21.5 million, while the NRSC has $19.7 million. * In his new defense, former Rep. John Kasich, the Republican gubernatorial hopeful in Ohio, tells voters in an ad that he didn't "run" Lehman Brothers. He was, however, one of many managing directors at Lehman while the infamous investment firm was collapsing. * In Florida, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows state CFO Alex Sink (D) with six point leads in this year's gubernatorial race over both of the leading Republican candidates, state Attorney General Bill McCollum and disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott. * With two weeks left before Michigan's competitive Republican gubernatorial primary, a Detroit News poll shows Mike Cox (R) with a very narrow lead over Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), 26.4% to 25.6%, * And in Virginia, where Republicans desperately hope to defeat Rep. Tom Perriello (D) in the 5th congressional district, the GOP got some encouraging news yesterday when a SurveyUSA poll showed Perriello trailing state Sen. Robert Hurt (R) by a whopping 23 points. Most recent polls have found the race far more competitive. * fixed —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
MORE THAN 'A ROGUISH PROVOCATEUR'.... The Atlantic's Joshua Green, a Monthly alum, notes this morning the political media pattern that was common for most of the '90s.
It happened with surprising frequency, and every time, we'd see media pieces acknowledging that reporters really should know better the next time. They never did. Now, as the Shirley Sherrod story helps demonstrate, it's Andrew Breitbart pulling the strings, and the same pattern emerges.
But it doesn't seem to matter. CNN had Breitbart on last night, and he went after the Spooners -- the family Sherrod helped rescue. This morning, he was given another platform on "Good Morning America." The "moral ugliness" doesn't seem to be interfering with Breitbart's media schedule. There's no shortage of institutional mistakes when it comes to the Sherrod story. The Agriculture Department was wrong to overreact; the NAACP was wrong to agree; and obviously Breitbart was wrong to launch a dishonest smear campaign against an innocent woman who'd done nothing wrong. But if the cable networks could take a moment to recognize their own culpability, it'd be a step in the right direction. Of course, if history is any guide, it'd be a step the outlets immediately took back the next time Big Government pushes a phony story. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
ANOTHER ROUND OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT VIOLENCE.... Over the weekend, a well-armed unemployed carpenter named Byron Williams allegedly initiated a shootout with police in Oakland. Williams' mother told reporters her son, who survived the ordeal, was angry at "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." Another report indicated that Williams has a history of opposing "liberal causes." I held off on writing about this, waiting for official confirmation about the gunman's motivations. Alas, the early reports were correct -- Williams was an anti-government zealot, hoping to start a "revolution." (via Oliver Willis)
Remarkably, no one was killed, though Williams was firing a rifle with ammunition that "could penetrate ballistic body armor and vehicles, police said." He was in court yesterday, and will face all kinds of criminal charges, including the attempted murder of four police officers. But stepping back, every time there's violence like this, I'm reminded of the concerns raised by the Department of Homeland Security last year, about potentially violent anti-government extremists -- concerns that appear increasingly prescient. These examples of politically-motivated attacks seem to keep piling up. Just this year, 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 the Hutaree Militia terrorist plot was uncovered. 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. In 2008, Jim David Adkisson opened fire in a Unitarian church in Tennessee, in part because of his "hatred of the liberal movement." Let there be no doubt: deranged madmen are responsible for their own violent actions. But in the wake of these attacks, I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that some of the leading far-right voices would lower the rhetorical temperature a bit, helping to cool the tempers of those who might be inclined to hurt others. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)
BEN STEIN AND 'POOR PERSONALITIES'.... Republican criticisms of the unemployed have been in abundance lately. Those who've lost their jobs in the brutal recession have, just recently, been labeled "spoiled" and "hobos." Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) thinks if you don't have a job, you might very well be a drug addict. A common Republican talking point is that the unemployed are just lazy folks who choose not to work, preferring government aid. But Ben Stein pushed the anti-jobless line to new depths this week.
Stein went on to suggest that young people learn lessons on "how to do a day's work." Among the things he wants folks to learn: call your colleagues "sir" or "ma'am," and remember the importance of "not talking back." His antiquated employment tips notwithstanding, Stein's notion that those who've lost their jobs are necessarily to blame for their condition -- they have "poor work habits and poor personalities" -- is just crazy in the midst of an employment crisis with five applicants for every opening. What's more, it's based on literally nothing but his own twisted perceptions. That wouldn't be especially troubling -- there are plenty of dumb columns out there -- were it not for the fact that Stein remains a prominent voice in media: "Using the Critical Mention media search engine, ThinkProgress finds that the name 'Ben Stein' was mentioned 64 times in major television media networks within the past thirty days alone." There's no reason for this. Stein has odd connections to a sleazy financial services company; he has truly insane beliefs about modern science; and in 2007, as the sub-prime bubble began to burst, Stein used his media perch to tell the public the crisis "will all blow over." (It didn't.) I vaguely recall the point, some years back, when Stein was considered something of a mainstream figure at the intersection of politics and entertainment. He'd show up as a cable news talking-head, in between Hollywood cameos and hosting a game-show. He seemed quirky, conservative, and harmless. Those days are long gone. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
THE RNC'S HIDDEN DEBTS.... I've lost count of how many times it's looked like a new controversy would force former RNC Chairman Michael Steele from his job. But in each instance, Steele looks ridiculous, the story eventually fades, the party doesn't want to go to the trouble of ousting him, and he lives to screw up another day. The Washington Times reports today, however, on a new matter that has nothing to do with Steele's notorious gaffes, and more to do with his notorious mismanagement.
When it comes to consequences, the financial problem could cause all kinds of trouble for Republicans. Deliberately filing deceptive FEC reports is criminal, and could lead to stiff penalties -- if not formal charges -- before the elections. And while the Republican National Committee is already downplaying the significance of this, there's reason to believe the party is aware of the seriousness of the situation.
Not only could this generate real legal problems for the RNC, if the allegations are true, there's also the unfortunate political message -- when Republicans can't manage their own books, they play accounting tricks and hide off-book debts, regardless of the law. It's a story to keep an eye on. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
MAKING THE UNEMPLOYED WAIT FOR NO REASON.... There was quite a bit of attention yesterday afternoon when the Senate, after multiple tries, finally overcame a Republican filibuster on extended unemployment benefits. It was welcome, overdue news. What got far less attention was what happened next. Under inexplicable Senate rules, after a filibuster is broken, the minority trying to block passage can delay a final, up-or-down vote for 30 hours. Democrats hoped Republicans would agree to waive this pointless delay, and allow the Senate to vote on jobless aid. Republicans, who know the bill is going to pass anyway, refused without explanation. Why would they bother? It's not just about Republicans being callous misanthropes -- though that's likely part of it -- it's also a matter of running out the clock. There's just not much time left on the Senate schedule, and the GOP wants to use up as much of the calendar as possible to prevent other bills and nominations from coming to the floor. If that means needlessly delaying aid to struggling families for a couple of days, Republicans see this as a small price to pay. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) spoke on the chamber floor last night, lamenting the pointless holdup. "I want everyone watching the proceedings tonight to again understand what the Republicans are doing," Reid said. "We just passed badly needed legislation to help 2.5 million unemployed. To show the lack of understanding and feeling and compassion of the Republicans, they're making us waste 30 hours. There are people who are desperate for this money -- desperate. And they're making us wait because that's what the rule of the Senate is. "Now, I hope the American people understand how callous this is. People are desperate, can't make house payments, car payments, can't pay for kids' food. And they are having us wait for 30 hours after cloture's been invoked. We only need a simple majority to pass this bill now, but they're making us wait. I just can't articulate in strong enough feelings how unfair this is to 2.5 million people.... Every hour that is delayed is more misery for 2.5 million people." I should also note that, under these same rules, the Senate can't take up any other bills or nominations while waiting for the 30 hours to elapse. In effect, it's like a mini-filibuster that gets tacked on to the failed filibuster. If Republicans push this to its limit, the Senate won't vote on the extended unemployment benefits until 9 p.m. (ET) this evening. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
VILSACK TO RECONSIDER SHERROD FIRING.... The full video of Shirley Sherrod's remarks to the NAACP in March has been posted, and there is no longer any doubt that she's been treated unfairly. Indeed, far from being offensive, the video is actually quite endearing -- we hear from a Southern, African-American woman overcoming division and racial acrimony to do the right thing, learning a valuable lesson about helping families in need. Fox News pointed to the truncated video as "Exhibit A" of "what racism looks like." That's backwards -- it's a heart-warming example of someone rising above racism. Her remarks weren't offensive; the right-wing scheme to destroy her is. Andrew Breitbart's initial claim that the video is "evidence of racism" is the exact opposite of reality. The only way to smear Sherrod is to remove every shred of relevant context, which is exactly what the right-wing Big Government website did. Two days after the edited, misleading clip was pushed onto the national scene, with the intention of destroying Sherrod's credibility, the video has backfired -- destroying the credibility of those who went on the attack. The NAACP, which initially endorsed Sherrod's forced resignation on Monday, has since changed its mind. Late yesterday, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous conceded in a statement that his organization was "snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart." It's time for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to acknowledge he made the same mistake. As of this morning, he's at least willing to do what he should have done Monday -- take a closer look at the facts.
Look, there's an obvious path for the secretary to follow here. Vilsack made a mistake when he fell for a right-wing con. It happens. The Agriculture Department has an unfortunate history when it comes to race and discrimination, and in his drive to improve the agency, Vilsack overreacted, not realizing just how deceptive conservative smear campaigns can be. It's a forgivable offense -- if the secretary puts things right quickly, acknowledges his error, and begs Sherrod to come back to work. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (69)
July 20, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Another possible option in the Gulf: "The federal government's spill chief is considering whether to pump heavy mud and cement through BP's experimental well cap that's keeping oil from the Gulf of Mexico. Retired U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen says Tuesday that the procedure would make it easier to complete the permanent fix of plugging the oil from the bottom of the blown out well because the oil would be smashed in from two directions." * And what about that seepage? Officials apparently believe it's coming from a different well. * The Senate voted 60 to 40 today to end a Republican filibuster of extended unemployment benefits. Two Republicans -- Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe -- sided with the majority, while one Democrat -- Nebraska's Ben Nelson -- fought to prevent a vote on the legislation. * If only there were 60 votes for aid to states: "Since the start of the recession, at least 25 states and the District of Columbia have curtailed programs that include meal deliveries, housekeeping aid and assistance for family caregivers, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research organization. That threatens to reverse a long-term trend of enabling people to stay in their homes longer." * Under the circumstances, this seems more than fair: "Senior Democrats on the [House Energy and Commerce Committee] -- Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) -- used a hearing on the Interior Department's role [in the BP oil spill] to trace the disaster back to former Vice President Dick Cheney's energy policy task force." * When Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) says the White House has never called him, he's not telling the truth. * Harold Pollack on HIV policy: "[Last] Tuesday, the Obama administration released its National HIV/AIDS Strategy. It's imperfect, but its authors should be proud. Whatever criticisms one may have of this administration, its policy analysts are allowed to discuss serious problems as mature adults, with a minimum of the embarrassing oversimplification, euphemism, or blatant political shading. In areas such as HIV and drug policy, this is refreshing." * In our reality, congressional Republicans have fought for weeks to oppose extended aid to the jobless. In Rep. Steve King's (R-Iowa) reality, accurate observations are "crazy." * This clearly isn't a great time to be a recent law school graduate. * I have to admit, I find the ongoing conservative hyperventilating about the now-defunct Journolist pretty amusing. If folks were talking about signing their names to an open letter -- a letter I signed, by the way -- then maybe it wasn't a secret plot? Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND SHERROD'S OUSTER.... We talked earlier about the latest Breitbart/Big Government clip, which may have forced the resignation of a capable administration official who did nothing wrong. There's been some interesting discussion this afternoon about all the blame that can be spread around. To quickly review, a video from the right-wing website shows USDA official Shirley Sherrod, who has been the director of regional development in Georgia, talking to the NAACP about an instance in which she didn't work as hard as she should have for a white farmer because she was "struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land." What the clip didn't show was that Sherrod was talking about an incident from 24 years ago -- long before she joined the USDA -- in which she eventually worked with that farmer to help ward off foreclosure of his farm. While there's been ample criticism of Breitbart/Big Government for releasing the misleading video, in some circles, there's been nearly as much criticism of the Obama administration. After all, Sherrod said today that she was forced to step down from her post after receiving "at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign." The point, obviously, is that the administration shouldn't act too hastily in response to some right-wing hatchet job. It's understandable that officials would be concerned about some new media "scandal" -- one probably intended to generate racial tensions in advance of the midterm elections -- but it's preferable to get the facts first. This afternoon, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, whose department oversees the USDA, said he's the one who made the decision -- the White House didn't pressure Vilsack or Sherrod. From the cabinet secretary's statement:
That's fine, but I'm left with two questions: 1. The next time a right-wing website releases a video like this, can skepticism please rule the day until all the facts are out? 2. Since Sherrod didn't do what she was accused of, can Vilsack re-hire her for the job? —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)
THE 'FAMILY VALUES' PARTY.... In Louisiana, retired state Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor launched an unexpected primary campaign against Sen. David Vitter (R) recently, citing concerns about Vitter's character. That seemed like a sound rationale -- Vitter ran on a "family values" platform, and then got caught with prostitutes. Vitter also paid a violent criminal to oversee women's issues for his Senate office, despite the aide having attacked his ex-girlfriend with a knife. As Traylor conceded, the issue wasn't ideological -- both he and Vitter are very far to the right -- but was based instead on integrity. Traylor would have the moral high ground, the argument went, while Vitter wouldn't.
As sleaze goes, this gets pretty ugly, even for the right-wing. According to the allegations, Traylor got involved with a married woman, whom he later married after her divorce. When she later died, Traylor began another affair with the wife of his stepson. As Justin Elliott summarized, "Louisiana Republicans are facing a choice between a family values incumbent who solicited prostitutes and a family values challenger who is currently sleeping with his stepson's estranged wife." And did I mention that Traylor considers himself a Christian conservative, whose most notable accomplishment was "protecting traditional marriage" in Louisiana? Of the two, I suppose one has to give the edge to Traylor -- his sexual escapades are bizarre, but at least they're not illegal, as was the case with Vitter and his prostitutes. But the details of both are a reminder that when Republicans claim to be the party of "family values" and the arbiters of morality, there's no reason the public should take this seriously. —Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
REPUBLICANS JUST DON'T LIKE THE UNEMPLOYED, CONT'D.... Just yesterday, President Obama spoke on the importance of unemployment benefits, and the misguided Republican argument that jobless Americans choose to stay that way -- on purpose -- because they're receiving benefits. "That attitude I think reflects a lack of faith in the American people, because the Americans I hear from in letters and meet in town hall meetings ... they're not looking for a handout," Obama said. "They desperately want to work. Just right now they can't find a job. These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who've fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm." But Republicans keep making the argument anyway. Sharron Angle, the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, has already pushed this line, calling the unemployed "spoiled." Greg Sargent reports this afternoon on two more GOP Senate candidates making the same case. Here's Ron Johnson, the right-wing Republican taking on Russ Feingold in Wisconsin...
...and here's Sen. Richard Burr (R), seeking a second term in North Carolina:
It's not just Senate candidates -- a couple of weeks ago, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (R), the frontrunner in this year's gubernatorial race, argued that jobless Americans choose not to work. "The jobs are there," Corbett said in a state facing unemployment levels at a 26-year high. "But if we keep extending unemployment, people are just going to sit there." Look, if Republicans want to make the case that the deficit is more important than the plight of the unemployed, fine. It's a debate they'll lose, but at least it's something to talk about. But this notion, pushed by Republicans for months, that jobless aid creates a disincentive for people to work, is misguided. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that an unemployed worker who's exhausted his/her benefits will be more desperate to take any job than an unemployed worker who's still receiving public aid. But this dynamic matters a whole lot more when there are plenty of job opportunities for those who want them. That's just not the current reality -- we're in the midst of an employment crisis, and there are five applicants for every job opening. For leading GOP officials and candidates to keep arguing that joblessness is something people choose shows a striking detachment from the lives of real people. I don't know what the unemployed did to offend the Republican Party this much, but I can only hope the GOP gets over it. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
KAGAN ADVANCES -- WITH GRAHAM'S BACKING.... There wasn't any doubt that the Senate Judiciary Committee would approve Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court today. There was interest, however, in how the vote would go. The committee endorsed Kagan on a 13-to-6 vote, with every Democrat supporting the nominee. The surprise came when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), joined with the majority. The South Carolina conservative delivered a fairly lengthy speech on the nomination, and conceded he could think of "100 reasons" to oppose Kagan. But he would back her anyway, because of her qualifications and character. "At the end of the day, after the hearing, it was not a hard decision for me to make," Graham explained. As for what's next for Kagan, her nomination now heads to the Senate floor, where final confirmation is expected before members break for their summer recess. But what's next for Graham? Chris Cillizza noted today that his support for Kagan "is likely to further incite conservatives already unhappy with him and, according to close observers of the state's politics, ensures he will face a serious primary challenge in 2014."
It seems that when Democrats make remarks like these -- the right may not like Candidate A, but smart voters will -- cries of "elitism" are hard to avoid. (Imagine what the media would do if David Axelrod said today that he expects President Obama to do well in 2012 "among voters with IQ's in triple digits.") I guess Republicans can get away with it more easily? But putting that aside, I still find the right's outrage over Graham to be pretty silly. He's voting for a qualified Supreme Court nominee? The horror! Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed on a 96 to 3 vote when her nomination was sent to the floor. How many of those Republicans were threatened with primary challenges because of it? —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
MEET SHIRLEY SHERROD.... It looked like Breitbart and the Big Government website had gotten the goods on another one of their enemies. But as is often the case, there's more to this one than meets the eye. The story involves USDA official Shirley Sherrod, the director of regional development in Georgia. She spoke recently at an NAACP event, and Big Government posted a portion of her remarks. As far as the far-right site is concerned, Sherrod "admitted" that she's used her "federally appointed position" to "discriminate against people due to their race." At first blush, the allegations almost seem fair. The video shows Sherrod talking about a deliberate decision not to help a white farmer because she was "struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land." Obviously, we can't have administration officials engaged in this kind of behavior, so Sherrod was forced to resign -- a decision initially endorsed by the NAACP, which called Sherrod's remarks "shameful."* You can probably tell there's a "but" coming. In this case, the conservative Big Government site showed the part of the speech it wanted people to see, and Fox News to air. Jay Bookman notes today that there's relevant information and context Breitbart's project didn't offer.
In fact, as it turns out, Sherrod worked so hard to help that white farmer and his family they consider her a "friend for life." Somehow, this didn't make the cut in the Big Government clip. The far-right site has the entire video, but only released the part that served the right's purposes. And in this case, the right's purposes are trying to spur racial animosity, taking the remarks of an African-American American official to the NAACP and removing the context, all in the hopes of generating white resentment. The anti-ACORN crusade -- and its creative editing -- should have been the first clue that right-wing video clips released by Breitbart and Big Government may not be what they seem to be. Shirley Sherrod offers another painful reminder. * Update: Today, the NAACP walked back yesterday's criticism, and is reportedly investigating the matter. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)
CRIST ISN'T DONE EVOLVING.... It's been kind of fun watching Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I) try on different personas. When launching his Senate campaign, Crist was a moderate Republican and the favorite to win in November. When GOP voters decided they hate moderates, Crist tried, awkwardly, to move to the right. Now he's an independent, and Crist is leading once more. Indeed, there's some evidence to suggest the governor is practically running as a Democrat.
Jon Chait makes the point that Crist's shameless approach to transactional politics is "refreshing" -- the governor is adapting to changing circumstances, positioning himself to win, and doesn't bother to maintain the pretense of principled consistency. There's something to be said for that. But also note, as Florida's Democratic Senate candidates so far struggle to break through, Crist is filling the void -- not being shy about running as a de facto Dem. That includes increasing praise for the Obama administration and Democratic candidates in Florida, but it also means reaching out to labor and hiring Democratic aides. When Crist left the GOP, I expected him to falter without the backing of a political party. What I didn't realize is that he would get institutional support -- it's just Democratic support. For Crist, it means a coalition that can help him cross the finish line. For Florida Dems, it means beating Rubio and, quite possibly, getting another independent senator who'll caucus with Democrats in 2011. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * It took longer than expected, but state lawmakers in West Virginia approved a measure yesterday to allow for a special election this year, allowing voters to fill the late Sen. Robert Byrd's (D) vacancy. A deal was struck when Republicans demanded that a sitting U.S. House member -- in this case, Shelley Moore Capito, believed to be the leading GOP candidate for the Senate race -- can run for re-election and in the special election at the same time. * And in related news, West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D), as expected, announced this morning that he's running to fill Byrd's vacancy. * Voters in Georgia will head to the polls today, with both parties holding gubernatorial primaries. Among Dems, former Gov. Roy Barnes is favored to defeat state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, and among Republicans, former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel is leading a multi-candidate field, and may be forced into an Aug. 10 runoff. * In Florida, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Gov. Charlie Crist (I) leading in the Senate race with 35% support. Marco Rubio (R) is second with 29%, followed by Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) with 17%. Libertarian Alex Snitker is a distant fourth with 4%. The results are largely unchanged from a similar poll taken in March. * Scott McInnis, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Colorado mired in a plagiarism scandal, made his first public appearance yesterday since the controversy erupted last week. He vowed not to end his campaign: "These boots are made for walking, and I'm ready to fight." * In Idaho, Rep. Walt Minnick, easily Congress' most conservative Democrat, received an endorsement from the Tea Party Express a few weeks ago. Yesterday, citing concerns over racism, Minnick said he no longer accepts the support. * In Arkansas, a poll commissioned by Arkansas-based Talk Business shows incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) trailing Rep. John Boozman (R) badly in this year's Senate race, 57% to 32%. * The same poll shows Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe (D) leading challenger Jim Keet (R), 49.5% to 40.5%. * And former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) tends to avoid "establishment" Republican candidates, giving her endorsement to more right-wing challengers, except in Iowa and New Hampshire. I wonder why that is. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
GENERIC BALLOT, CAVEAT EMPTOR.... In late May, Gallup's generic congressional ballot, pulled together from daily tracking data, showed Republicans with one of their biggest leads over Democrats ever, 49% to 43%. Loyal Bushie Peter Wehner, among other Republicans in media, was overjoyed, and used the results as clear evidence that the "political noose continues to tighten around the necks of Democrats."
Not quite two months later, Gallup's new generic congressional ballot shows the mirror opposite. As of now, it's Democrats who are leading, 49% to 43%. As the pollster noted, it's "the first statistically significant lead for that party's candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March." I suspect a poll like this will be a morale booster at DNC headquarters, but I'd caution against taking any of these results too seriously. Looking at that Gallup chart, the trends appear pretty erratic, and don't seem to reflect any meaningful rationale. Wehrer's misplaced excitement notwithstanding, there was no real reason for Republicans to have jumped out to a six-point edge in late May, just as there's no real reason to think there's been a 12-point shift in Democrats' direction in less than two months. Sure, Republicans haven't had a great summer thus far -- Joe Barton's apology to BP got the ball rolling in Dems' favor lately -- but I'd be surprised if that explains the jump in the Gallup results. If so, every generic-ballot poll would start to show a similar shift. For that matter, not everything in the Gallup data was good news for Democrats. The poll found the "enthusiasm gap" getting worse for Democrats, with 51% of Republicans saying they are "very enthusiastic" about voting this year, the highest number in months. In a midterm cycle like this one, enthusiasm may mean the difference between majority status and minority status. My advice, for what it's worth: no one should get too excited something like this. Wehner shouldn't celebrate when the GOP is up six, and he shouldn't contemplate jumping out the window when Democrats are up six. It's one poll, and an erratic one at that. The Gallup numbers could be the result of the unemployment fight, the Wall Street reform vote, and the recent Republican controversies, or they could just as easily be statistical noise. —Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
NO WONDER FOX NEWS VIEWERS ARE SO CONFUSED.... If reducing the federal budget deficit is one's top goal -- and in a weak economy, it shouldn't be -- the solution is hardly a secret, at least in the general sense. The government will need some combination of tax increases and spending cuts to help close the gap. If you're a "business expert" for Fox News, however, you have a slightly different understanding of reality. The perpetually-confused Stuart Varney was on "Fox & Friends" this morning, talking about how awful it would be to extend unemployment benefits, because aid to jobless Americans would be added to the deficit. In the next breath, Varney was outraged by the notion that Bush's tax cuts would expire next year. Democrats, Varney insisted, are going to "swell the deficit" in the coming years by "raising taxes ... which increases the deficit." First, Democrats aren't "raising taxes," so much as they're following the Republican plan to let breaks for the wealthy expire on schedule. If Varney doesn't like it, he should blame the GOP for coming up with this tax scheme in the first place. Second, if Fox News' "business expert" seriously believes the deficit goes up when tax rates increase, he's in the wrong profession. It's sheer nonsense, and a reminder of why a) Stuart Varney is something of an embarrassment to himself; and b) Fox News viewers struggle so badly with current events. An audience bombarded with incoherent propaganda is bound to get confused. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
GOP JUST CAN'T QUIT BUSH.... The notion that Democrats would gain traction this year by tying Republican candidates to George W. Bush's failed presidency has always seemed implausible to me. The GOP's lack of popularity still stems from the previous administration's catastrophes, but it seems challenging, at best, to keep connecting the party to Bush two years later. Fortunately for Democrats, Republicans are making it easier. In recent months, leading GOP candidates and officials have made no real effort to hide the fact that the Republican agenda in 2010 is effectively identical to the agenda of Bush/Cheney. They're even praising the failed administration while embracing its policy ideas. This culminated over the weekend with National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) suggesting on "Meet the Press" that his party wants to "go back to the exact same agenda" they pursued during the Bush/Cheney years. A day later, the DNC put together this video, highlighting not only Sessions' remarks, but the consequences of a return to policies we already know don't work. "Republican candidates should expect to see this ad on a television station near them this fall,"a DNC official told Greg Sargent. "Republicans have given us an opening to tie them back to Bush and have also helped us frame this election as a choice -- between Obama and Bush." I don't doubt that Democrats face a very challenging cycle, and have every reason to be nervous, but the easier Republicans make it to tie them to George W. Bush, the better off Dems will be. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
ZEALOTS FIND FAN CLUB IN U.S. HOUSE.... Just what Congress needed, another right-wing fan club made up of House Republicans.
There's already been some success on this front. Yesterday, Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) was asked if he'd join Bachmann's group. "You betcha," he said. Will the rest of the GOP leadership, which wasn't notified in advance of Bachmann's plan, also join? At this point, it's less than clear. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he doesn't join any of the various caucuses, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his chief deputy, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), are on record as "undecided" about Bachmann's club. Indeed, it's hardly a stretch to think GOP lawmakers may struggle, at least a little, with the decision of whether to be associated with the House Tea Party Caucus.
It's probably a harder question now than it would have been a year ago. As more Americans have had a chance to get a better look at this so-called "movement," Tea Partiers have become more closely associated with extremism, and in some cases, even racism. Republicans have been thrilled to take advantage of the passion and enthusiasm of the confused, unhinged activists -- the overlap between Tea Partiers and the GOP base is overwhelming -- but taking the next step and officially joining a caucus tied to radicalism may prove to be more difficult for some. But then there's the flip side -- what happens when the activists start considering membership in Bachmann's club something of a litmus test? What will reluctant GOP House members do when they're told by Tea Partiers, "Join the House Tea Party Caucus or you'll be ineligible for our endorsement"? —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
SENATE POISED TO EXTEND JOBLESS BENEFITS.... Last month, Senate Democrats tried three times to pass extended unemployment benefits, and in each instance, Republicans (and Ben Nelson) refused to allow the Senate to vote on the measure. If all goes according to plan, the fourth time will be the charm this afternoon. Around 2 p.m. (ET), Carte Goodwin will be sworn in to temporarily fill the vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D), bringing the Senate Democratic caucus to 59 members. Literally minutes later, the leadership will bring the unemployment bill to the floor. With Maine's Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R) set to break ranks, that should leave the majority with the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican obstructionism. With President Obama raising the heat on the issue yesterday, congressional Republicans spent the afternoon insisting they'd just love to extend aid to jobless Americans, just as soon as Democrats offset the costs elsewhere.
Of course, Republicans have spent the last few weeks arguing that hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy don't have to be paid for, so the GOP requirement that $33 billion in aid for jobless Americans be offset with cuts elsewhere seems a little silly. But it's also worth keeping in mind that what Boehner and his cohorts are demanding has no modern precedent. In recent decades, extended unemployment benefits have either been considered emergency spending, and therefore added to the deficit, or offset with tax increases. Arthur Delaney did a nice job digging up the details:
It's almost amusing to think how much more conservative Republicans are now than in 1991, when such a deal was still possible. Also note, we're already in unprecedented territory: "Congress has never allowed extended unemployment benefits to lapse at a time when the national unemployment rate is above 7.2 percent." Sixty senators should put things right in about six hours. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
July 19, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Uncertainty in the Gulf: "A pressure test of BP's undersea well that has kept fresh oil from gushing into the Gulf of Mexico will be allowed to continue for another day, despite concerns about potential new problems near the well, the government official overseeing the spill response said Monday." * Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen told reporters there are leaks, but they're not a major concern yet. As for the seepage, Allen believes it may be unrelated to the wellhead. * Iraq: "Two suicide bombings targeting members of local guard forces killed at least 48 people Sunday and heightened concern about the future of the groups as the number of U.S. troops in the country is reduced." * A fascinating Washington Post report: "The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work." Plenty of good analysis on this today. * Sixteen "notable economists and historians have joined in a consensus statement" to endorse additional government stimulus. Good advice. * Glenn Beck's friends at Goldline may be facing some legal trouble. * Looks like the White House signing ceremony on Wall Street reform will be on Wednesday. * Bradford Plumer takes a look at where things stand on the energy/climate bill, and whether the bill would still be worthwhile if it lacks cap-and-trade. * It's hard to feel sorry for CEOs who get "everything they want, yet still they whine." * Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) knows exactly where to turn for a 10-minute interview that ignores all of his recent controversies. (I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with Rox Snooze.) * I'm delighted the United Nations ignored congressional Republicans and extended accreditation to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. * Sounds right: "If students aren’t ready for life after high school, provide them with what they need to get there. Perhaps equally important, if they’re ready for college, they can just go there." * Leading Tea Party activist Mark Williams has apparently been deemed a little too racist for his own right-wing "movement." * The FBI worked with a company called Blogetery over the weekend to shut down some servers after officials found al Qaeda materials, child pornography, bomb-making tips, and a list of Americans appearing on a "hit list." Tea Party Nation was outraged, and suggested this might a "dry run" for the government shutting down websites "critical of the [Obama] regime." The hysterical paranoia just never ends. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
WHEN TRENT LOTT IS THE VOICE OF REASON.... As much of the Republican Party is prepared to keep moving to the far-right, we talked over the weekend about whether the GOP still has any grown-ups left to temper the demands of extremists. As it happens, there are Republicans willing to argue that the Tea Party crowd and its allies on the Hill are over the top, but they tend to be those who no longer worry about re-election.
This apparently isn't going over well in right-wing circles.
While this back and forth is of some interest in its own right, the point that I take away from this is that Trent Lott -- yes, Trent Lott -- has suddenly become a voice of reason in Republican Party politics in 2010. That's not a sentence I ever expected to type. I'm reminded of a study Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson did some years back, comparing congressional Republicans of different eras. They found that Republican lawmakers in 2003 were 73% more conservative than the median GOP member of the early '70s. Seven years later, Trent Lott is getting slammed by right-wing leaders for being too moderate. Something to remember the next time the David Broders of the world insist the political process would be much better off if Democrats simply worked in good faith with Republicans to find moderate solutions to national problems. The last three GOP Senate Majority Leaders -- Dole, Frist, and Lott -- have all been deemed wholly unacceptable to the Republican base, and the base is calling the shots. —Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
DODD CONCERNED ABOUT WARREN OVERCOMING OBSTRUCTIONISM.... By most measures, Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren seems like the obvious choice to lead the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The bureau itself almost certainly wouldn't exist were it not for Warren's work, and by most accounts, she's the one who proposed creating the office in the first place. White House senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters the other day that Warren, currently the leading watchdog of the financial industry bailout, is "a great, great champion for consumers," adding that she's "obviously a candidate to lead this effort" at the CFPA. This isn't to say there aren't other qualified candidates, but Warren appears to be in a class of her own. So, what's the problem? There have been widespread rumors about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner raising concerns, but today, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) suggested there's a more obvious impediment.
Just so we're clear, in a 59-41 Senate, with the White House's party in the majority, the president may be discouraged from nominating the most qualified choice to lead a key consumer protection agency because conservative senators probably won't let her have an up-or-down vote. Perhaps now would be a good time to mention that this is no way to run a government. —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
THE ELECTORATE.... Paul Krugman's NYT column today is an important one, which raises several points that haven't received significant attention from major media outlets. In particular, he predicts that if the midterm elections go very badly for Democrats, "the usual suspects will say that it was because Mr. Obama was too liberal," which would be both foolish and wrong. And while it's hardly the most important point, Krugman also noted that policy issues don't seem to matter to voters, "in part because voters are often deeply ill informed." The column left the public off easy: "There's no point berating voters for their ignorance: people have bills to pay and children to raise, and most don't spend their free time studying fact sheets. Instead, they react to what they see in their own lives and the lives of people they know." Isaac Chotiner is less forgiving.
I understand Krugman's point, and for families juggling schedules and struggling to get by, I imagine it's incredibly difficult to keep up with the details of current events. But in general, I'm more persuaded by Chotiner's take. The political system relies heavily on an informed electorate, and the more voters are uninformed, the more our democracy suffers. And when I say "suffers," I don't just mean voters rewarding the wrong candidates or parties; I mean the entire political process is undermined. When voters are ignorant, candidates are more likely to lie, confident in their ability to get away with it. When the electorate is disengaged, policymakers feel less pressure to exercise good judgment, knowing they can just pull the wool over the public's eyes later. I'm obviously engaged in politics, and if you're reading this, you are too. Not everyone shares our interests, and that's fine. For that matter, most people have hectic daily lives, and don't have time to read eight newspapers a day. That's fine, too. But many Americans make time for the things they find important. They spent time watching sports, or keeping up on celebrities, or whatever. And while it would be the height of arrogance to suggest the public change its leisure habits, our political system relies on a certain level of sophistication among the public, and there's ample evidence that we're just not at that level. In human history, it's never been easier to get -- and stay -- well informed. Folks just have to take some responsibility. If they don't, the result can be a dysfunctional democracy. As Digby put it a while back, "We simply cannot adequately govern ourselves if a large number of us are dumb as posts and vote for reasons that make no sense." —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (54)
WHY WON'T FOX NEWS AIR A VETERANS' GROUP'S AD?.... As ads on energy/climate go, the new one from VoteVets, a progressive organization founded by veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a little harder hitting than most. The spot features commentary from retired Brigadier Gen. Steven Anderson, who was the chief of logistics for U.S. forces in Iraq under Gen. Petraeus, and who is now urging the Senate to pass a clean energy plan. In the ad, Anderson tells viewers, "[B]reaking our addiction [to foreign oil] must not only be a military priority, but America's mission, and why the Senate needs to pass a clean energy climate plan. It'll put Americans to work developing new energy technologies that'll save lives overseas, make us less dependent and more secure.... It's time for our senators to choose: Pass a clean energy climate plan that makes us more secure, or let America keep paying the price." It's a powerful argument from a compelling figure, and VoteVets is reportedly spending a half-million dollars to run the minute-long ad on national cable networks. But not Fox News. CNN and MSNBC began airing the commercial today, but the Republican network has rejected the ad without explanation. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's happened before. In May, VoteVets put together a similar ad, which Fox News deemed "too confusing" for its audience. It also seems to fit into a pattern. A few years ago, the Center for Constitutional Rights tried to buy an ad criticizing torture, but Fox News refused to air it. Bill O'Reilly soon after insisted the ad was "anti-American." In 2005, Fox News also refused to accept an ad criticizing then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. And in 2006, Fox News was one of several networks to reject an ad from the United Church of Christ that told viewers, "No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here." The rejected ads have something in common -- a progressive message that Fox News would prefer its viewers not be exposed to. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
GOP BLASTS DEMS FOR STICKING TO A REPUBLICAN PLAN.... As bad as the Republicans' "Tax Fairy" nonsense is, the notion that a "Democrat [sic] tax hike" is on the way is every bit as absurd, and arguably even more dishonest. Chances are, you haven't heard about a Democratic plan to raise taxes on "every" American -- including those in the middle class -- probably because such a proposal doesn't exist. But Republicans, including Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, is pushing nonsense in the hopes voters won't look too closely and notice his shameless dishonesty. The pitch is simple: if the massive, reckless Bush tax cuts expire as planned, taxpayers will go back to the rates they paid in the 1990s (when the economy was strong and the deficit was nonexistent). Since Democrats don't plan to maintain Bush's failed tax policies, Republicans are arguing that Dems are necessarily planning to raise everyone's taxes. There are, of course, two problems here. The first is that Democrats plan to keep some, and perhaps even all, of the existing tax rates, a detail the GOP is pretending to ignore. The second is that Democrats, if they were to allow the lower rates to expire, would simply be following the policies set out by Republicans. Ezra Klein had a good item on this today.
Exactly. Republicans couldn't address their cuts through honest budgeting, so they played a game -- claiming the cuts would expire, obscuring their cost, and making them eligible for an up-or-down vote. The GOP could have done their due diligence, and found a way to pay for their own policies -- in other words, they could have acted like Democrats who've paid for their major policy initiatives -- but they refused. Legislatively, it worked; the cuts passed. Economically, it failed -- the robust growth never materialized; job growth was abysmal; and the deficit soared. So, faced with a budget mess created by Republicans a decade later, Democrats are inclined to follow the Republican policy -- let some of the cuts expire, eventually, just as the GOP's law mandated. This, in turn, will help lower the deficit, which the GOP pretends to care about. Republicans are screaming bloody murder about a "tax increase," but in reality, Democrats aren't raising taxes, so much as they're executing the Republicans' plan and allowing the lower rates on the wealthy to revert back to 1990s levels. In effect, the GOP is whining incessantly about Democrats following the Republican script too closely. The GOP shouldn't complain -- this was their idea. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
GETTING A LITTLE FIRED UP OVER UNEMPLOYMENT AID.... If all goes according to plan, the Senate will try, for a fourth time, in recent months, to extend unemployment benefits. With the Senate Democratic caucus growing to 59 members tomorrow afternoon, the prospects are relatively strong that it'll pass. But President Obama nevertheless used his bully pulpit this morning, not only urging senators to do the right thing, but also taking some not-so-veiled shots at those who've been fighting so hard against jobless aid. He stood alongside three Americans who've been struggling and need those benefits. "For a long time, there's been a tradition -- under both Democratic and Republican Presidents -- to offer relief to the unemployed," he said. "That was certainly the case under my predecessor, when Republican senators voted several times to extend emergency unemployment benefits. But right now, these benefits -- benefits that are often a person's sole source of income while they're looking for work -- are in jeopardy." With the volume of his voice clearly rising, Obama went on to say, "And I have to say, after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn't have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn't offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie or Denise, who really need help." "The past few weeks, a majority of senators have tried -- not once, not twice, but three times -- to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. Each time, a partisan minority in the Senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote, denying millions of people who are out of work much-needed relief." Responding to one of the GOP talking points, the president went on to say, "These leaders in the Senate who are advancing a misguided notion that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job should talk to these folks. That attitude I think reflects a lack of faith in the American people, because the Americans I hear from in letters and meet in town hall meetings -- Americans like Leslie and Jim and Denise -- they're not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work. Just right now they can't find a job. These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who've fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm." There are multiple reasons for remarks like these. Obviously, the White House hopes to generate some support in advance of tomorrow's vote. But as the presidential remarks helped underscore, the administration also hopes to make abundantly clear which party stands for more aid, and which is inclined to leave struggling families on their own. Indeed, though Obama seemed reluctant to use the word "Republican," he left no doubt how frustrating it is to see the GOP approve extended aid through deficit financing before, just like Republicans cut taxes and boosted spending through deficit financing, only to see them take a stand now on the backs of the unemployed. It's a message we're likely to hear again throughout the campaign season. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
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. * West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) hoped to see the state legislature approve a new measure over the weekend on holding a special election this year to fill the late Sen. Robert Byrd's (D) vacancy. That didn't happen, legislators have adjourned, and no one's sure what will happen next. * In Colorado, gubernatorial hopeful Scott McInnis (R) is still reeling after his plagiarism scandal, and some of his top staffers are starting to run for the exits. * On a related note, a SurveyUSA poll of Colorado Republicans found 64% want someone other than McInnis as their gubernatorial nominee. Leading the pack: former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R). * In Arizona's Republican Senate primary, Sen. John McCain, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and political newcomer Jim Deakin held two debates in the last three days. In Friday night's event, Hayworth noted, "It's really sad to see John McCain, who should be revered as a statesman, basically reduced to a political shape-shifter. John, you've changed positions so much in this campaign maybe we'll have to set up an extra podium for you depending on which John McCain is going to answer which question." By Saturday, it was perfectly clear that "these two guys really don't like each other." * In Nevada, the Senate race is getting increasingly interesting, but the gubernatorial race isn't -- the latest Mason-Dixon poll shows Brian Sandoval (R) leading Rory Reid (D), 47% to 36%. * It's Rasmussen, so take the results with a grain of salt, but the pollster released its latest results in Delaware's Senate race, and it's a little closer than I'd expected. Rep. Mike Castle (R), the heavy favorite, leads New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) by 11, 47% to 36%. * And in Nebraska, Democrats will field a gubernatorial candidate after all, with attorney Mike Meister allowing the state party to place his name in nomination at the state Democratic convention next weekend. He'll face incumbent Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who'll be the overwhelming favorite. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
TAX FAIRY WATCH.... Roll Call had a fascinating headline today, following Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) appearance on CNN over the weekend. The headline read: "McConnell Blasts Deficit Spending, Urges Extension of Tax Cuts." It's part of the newest push in Republican politics -- the notion that tax cuts don't add to the deficit, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, because they pay for themselves. Thirty years ago this was considered "voodoo economics" by even many Republicans, but more recently, it's been labeled belief in the "tax fairy." Credible economists dismiss the argument as nonsense, but the Republican Party in its entirety doesn't seem to care. Yesterday, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) toed the party line.
This morning, Florida's GOP Senate hopeful Marco Rubio demanded more tax cuts for the wealthy. When asked how he'd pay for them, he replied:
As a substantive matter, all of this is gibberish. The problem is the ubiquity of the gibberish in GOP circles. This most recent push started about a week ago with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisting that spending increases need to be paid for, but lawmakers shouldn't even try to pay for tax cuts. California Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina (R) soon followed, declaring, "You don't need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) soon added that Bush's tax cuts, which created huge deficits, actually "increased revenue." Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) agreed that "tax cuts should not have to be offset." A few days later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) managed to sound even dumber, insisting that $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy are "not a cost." As we talked about last week, these developments have made abundantly clear that conservative Republicans don't care at all about reducing the deficit, but that's really just the beginning of the larger revelation here. By embracing economic nonsense with such enthusiasm, Republicans are also making it painfully obvious that they don't care about reality, either. Krugman's label -- "invincible ignorance" -- continues to ring true. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
THE STONE AGE.... In 21st century America, we could be investing more in infrastructure, but that's expensive. It's cheaper to simply move away from paved roads.
Of course they are. The WSJ noted one North Dakota resident who voted against a ballot measure to raise taxes to pay for paved roads, right around the time she wrote to the governor, urging him not to allow a major road in her area to be converted into gravel. Folks want more public services while opposing efforts to pay for them. Imagine that. As for the bigger picture, public officials looking for stimulative investments in infrastructure don't have to look too hard. I'd personally like see far more spending on rail, but helping communities have paved streets not only seems reasonable, it would also create some jobs and improve local commerce. If there were 60 votes in the Senate for infrastructure, this might even happen. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
LIE OF THE DAY.... For all of their many faults, the message discipline of Republican lawmakers is a sight to behold. Here's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on CNN yesterday morning:
Around the same time, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) said this on NBC:
Republicans desperately want Americans to believe Democrats nearly tripled the deficit. Here's the reality: when Bush/Cheney left office, they left behind a $1.3 trillion deficit. We don't yet know exactly what this year's deficit will be, but most estimates point suggest it'll be about $1.4 trillion. With that in mind, there are a few angles to consider here. First, while there's probably a shortage of calculators in the Republican cloak room, even GOP leaders should understand that going from $1.3 trillion to $1.4 trillion isn't an especially significant increase given the size of the economy and the budget, and it's certainly not a tripling of the deficit as they're suggesting. Second, despite the fact that Bush is gone, the single biggest factors driving the deficit are Bush/Cheney policies. That's not opinion; it's fact. McConnell and Cornyn may not like it, but reality doesn't care. And third, Bush, McConnell, and Cornyn added $5 trillion to the debt in eight years. They approved tax cuts, two wars, Medicare expansion, No Child Left Behind, and a massive financial industry bailout -- without even trying to pay for literally any of it. If they think they have credibility on fiscal responsibility, they're out of their minds. Update: Paul Krugman takes the claim on in more detail, and includes a helpful chart. Take a look. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
HAS THE GOP COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN 2001 TO 2009?.... It was a hard-to-forget treasure from the 2008 presidential campaign -- South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), a leading candidate at the time for the Republican presidential ticket, was asked on CNN to name any differences between George W. Bush and John McCain. He couldn't. Maybe now would be a good time to start asking Republican congressional candidates the same question. On "Meet the Press" yesterday, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) was asked about what Republicans would do with a majority. After struggling badly to think of anything substantive, he eventually said, "We need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminish it." "We need to go back to the exact same agenda." In context, the agenda Sessions seems to want "to go back to" was that of the Bush/Cheney administration and the Republican Congress. Indeed, GOP leaders are not only urging a return to failed Bush policies, they're even praising the failed former president.
To be sure, we've heard some of this before. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said in April that Bush "will go down as a very, very good president," adding that the former president deserves support from anyone "who is not a rank political hack." Around the same time, former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) was roundly applauded when he praised Bush at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this month. There's even been some talk in GOP circles of a "Bush Restoration Project." But Republican committee chairmen like Sessions and Cornyn are supposed to know better. Indeed, the entire campaign is quickly becoming inexplicable. In recent weeks, we've seen high-profile Republicans urge the party to return to Bush's economic agenda, Bush's Social Security agenda, Bush's tax policies, and Bush's regulatory agenda. With just four months to go before the midterm elections, Republican candidates seem to seriously believe if we just go back to the policies that failed miserably, and created our current mess(es), we'll all be better off. Dems have been trying to push this argument for months, and for some reason, the GOP now appears intent to help. It seems more than a little risky. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
SHINING A LIGHT ON 'A PRETTY GAUZY AGENDA'.... "Meet the Press" aired an interesting discussion yesterday between the four campaign committee chairmen -- the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate campaign committees -- with host David Gregory raising an increasingly important question. It's clear what the GOP will say "no" to -- everything Dems want -- but what will they say "yes" to? The responses were important. Gregory started with NRCC Chair Pete Sessions (R) of Texas, asking what his party would do with a majority. Sessions danced around for a while, talking about the "need to live within our own means." Gregory said it sounded like "a pretty gauzy agenda," and tried again, asking for specifics, and wondering "what painful choices are Republicans prepared to make." Sessions hemmed and hawed, saying something about entitlement spending and the need to "empower the free enterprise system." Gregory kept asking for some kind of details, and Sessions kept refusing. The host eventually gave up, and asked NRSC Chairman Jeff Cornyn (R) of Texas if he could offer any specifics. Cornyn said something about waiting for the debt commission to say something. "But wait a minute," Gregory replied. "Conservatives need a Democratic president's debt commission to figure out what it is they need to cut?" Apparently so; Cornyn didn't have an answer. This continues to be a problem for the Republican Party. They want power, but don't want to tell anyone why until after they have it. Given the spectacular failures of the last attempts at Republican governing, the GOP is effectively urging voters to take a leap of faith -- give power back to those who screwed up last time, and hope that their well hidden agenda doesn't prove to be too radical and dangerous. —Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
'REFUDIATING' PALIN'S INANITY.... In some far-right circles, a proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan has become an important -- and ugly -- rallying cry. As is often the case, though, a certain former half-term governor managed to push the matter to new depths. The proposed facility at issue is called the Cordoba House. Despite some claims to the contrary, it would not be built directly at Ground Zero, but rather, two blocks north. The center would include "a prayer space, a performing arts center, a swimming pool, and other amenities," and has been spearheaded by a longtime local imam, who's committed to fighting radicalism, and considers the building a monument to tolerance and respect. The project was endorsed overwhelmingly by a local community board. But that was before right-wing activists got involved. The far-right Washington Times argued a Muslim community center may represent "an attempt to hijack the memory of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks," a sentiment endorsed by Liz Cheney's right-wing activist group. A far-right radio host told listeners he hopes "somebody blows it up" if the Cordoba House is built. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is disappointed that, under the First Amendment, the facility cannot legally be blocked. And yesterday, Sarah Palin, the dumbest person in American public life, decided to stand up for the bigots. Relying once again on Twitter, where there are no follow-up questions, the bizarre Fox News personality said:
Putting aside the fact that "refudiate" is not a word -- though Palin, who's used the word before, seems convinced that it is -- the message itself is nothing short of pathetic. Mainstream, law-abiding Muslim Americans want to build a community center in Manhattan for other mainstream, law-abiding Muslim Americans. The "heartland" (i.e., "real" Americans) disapproves? "Peaceful Muslims" should denounce their own faith tradition? Palin then deleted that tweet, and tried again:
That's an awkward use of the word "refute" -- you can always tell when Palin writes her own missives -- and the argument is still incoherent. The pain is "too raw" for whom? Anti-Muslim bigots who don't want a community center built in Manhattan? Would Palin allow these Americans to build a facility three blocks away? How about four? At what point is it no longer "too real"? Soon after, Palin, perhaps realizing her argument wasn't going over well, tried once more:
I'm fairly certain she doesn't understand what "provocation" means. As for whether a community center "stabs hearts," that only makes sense if your principal concern is with the sensibilities of bigots. Finally, responding to her difficulties with English, Palin conceded that "refudiate" isn't a word, but compared herself to the Bard: "Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!" In terms of analysis, it's hard to know where to start with such painful, abject stupidity, but it's worth noting Palin's framing of the issue: as she sees it, there's a burden here, and it rests on "peaceful," mainstream, law-abiding Muslim Americans. They've done nothing wrong, but Palin nevertheless expects them to accommodate the ignorance and hatred of the closed-minded by "refudiating" a proposal to build a community center committed to respect, healing, and tolerance. The implication isn't subtle -- some Muslims want to build the facility in Manhattan, but peaceful Muslims should oppose it. In her twisted little mind, Palin thinks those fighting radicalism deserve our fear and mistrust, while bigots deserve our understanding. Sarah Palin is a small, sad extremist, who embarrasses herself on a nearly daily basis, but yesterday's display was genuinely pathetic, even for her. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (84)
July 18, 2010
WHEN THE FRINGE IS THE MAINSTREAM.... Dana Milbank had a very worthwhile column today, noting, among other things, the larger significance of a billboard in Mason City, Iowa. You're no doubt familiar with it by now. This is the billboard "depicting three leaders: Adolf Hitler (with swastika), Vladimir Lenin (with hammer and sickle) and Barack Obama (with 2008 campaign logo). Over Hitler were the words 'National Socialism,' over Lenin was 'Marxist Socialism' and over Obama was 'Democrat Socialism.'" The billboard was sponsored by local Tea Party activists, who eventually backpedaled, not because they realized their sign was insane, but because the media coverage made them look bad. The importance is the larger context: "The vile sign ... was a logical expression of a message supported by conservative thought leaders and propagated by high-level Republican politicians." Quite right. Milbank notes, for example, a recent screed from Thomas Sowell, who equated the Obama presidency with the rise of Hitler. It was quickly touted by a right-wing member of Congress and a certain former half-term governor of Alaska.
The speed with which conservatives went from zero to hysterical in 2009 was impressive, but it's the mainstreaming of sheer madness that doesn't get the attention it deserves. As Milbank noted, "[A]ccusations that once were beyond the pale -- not just talk of Nazis and Marxists but intimations of tyranny, revolution and bloodshed -- are now routine." And they're common, not just among fringe media personalities and activists, but with the Republican Party establishment. It's tempting to think there will be eventually be a Joseph Welch moment, but no one in the party seems willing to step up and acknowledge that Republicans shouldn't follow the orders of unhinged zealots. On the contrary, they're afraid to disappoint the radical base, which may in turn undermine the GOP's "enthusiasm gap" edge. And so the Republican Party shows no meaningful qualms about becoming the party of conspiracy theories ("Birthers," Gulf oil spill was deliberate), wild-eyed accusations (ACORN, "re-education camps," Gestapo-like security forces, New Black Panther Party), and radical policy positions (a five-year spending freeze to address a global economic crisis, the belief that tax cuts pay for themselves, a freeze on federal regulations, willful ignorance about energy, health, and education policy, the entire Sharron Angle/Rand Paul platform). Rage and paranoia are not an attractive combination, but they're driving the GOP talking points and the larger political discourse. So, when a member of the Republican leadership talked about the GOP emulating the Taliban, no one in the party deemed this controversial. When Republicans regularly compare U.S. leaders to Germany in the 1930s, the party mainstream barely bats an eye. When GOP policymakers openly discuss the prospect of state nullification of federal laws, no one in the Republican ranks steps up to say, "Good Lord, these people are mad." Best of all, Republican "leaders" are content to keep it this way. Indeed, it seems to be the centerpiece of the midterm election strategy. The point isn't that political radicalism is new; it's clearly not. Rather, the key development over the last 18 months is the ways in which right-wing extremism has gone mainstream -- with the consent of the Republican Party, which sees the electoral benefits of blind rage and fear. That Mason City billboard warned the public that "radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive." On this, the Tea Partiers were far more correct than they probably realize. —Steve Benen 11:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)
ODDEST. MEDIA STRATEGY. EVER.... Try as I might, I just don't understand how Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) thinks. Today, the scandal-plagued conservative complained that President Obama, who's personally visited the Gulf Coast four times since the oil spill crisis began in April, hasn't been back to the region in a month.
I'm trying to understand the logic here. The president visited the region four times as the disaster grew more devastating. Was this part of a White House media strategy to get the story onto the front page? Obama's last visit to the region was one month ago today, and since that time, Vice President Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama, and members of the cabinet have all gone to the Gulf Coast. Is this evidence, in Vitter's mind, of an administration that's deliberately trying to ignore the region? Thanks to the developments of the last few days, the wellhead is contained, and oil is no longer gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. Vitter believes the president visited Maine so there'd be less media coverage of the good news? If there's a coherence to Vitter's whining, I don't see it. —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
A LIKELY SCENARIO IN 2011.... It's hard to say with confidence which party will hold the congressional majority next year, but Paul Krugman noted yesterday that "fake scandals" will be all the rage in the 112th Congress if there's a Republican majority.
This may sound hyperbolic. It's not. In the Clinton era, House Republicans held two weeks of hearings investigating the Clintons' Christmas card list, and the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform fired a bullet into a "head-like object" -- reportedly a melon -- in his backyard to test his conspiracy theories about Vince Foster. All told, over the last six years of Bill Clinton's presidency, that same committee unilaterally issued 1,052 subpoenas -- that's not a typo -- to investigate baseless allegations of misconduct. That translates to an average of a politically-inspired subpoena every other day for six consecutive years, including weekends, holidays, and congressional recesses. It would almost certainly be worse in 2011 and 2012. Indeed, the man positioned to lead the committee -- reformed alleged car thief Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) -- has already said he's inclined to leave "corporate America" alone, so he can attack the White House relentlessly. For that matter, let's also not forget that some Republicans, including two members of Congress, have raised the specter of presidential impeachment once there's a GOP majority. But Krugman also flagged this item from John Quiggin, reflecting on another likely scenario in the event of a GOP House majority.
Agreed. John Boehner (R-Ohio) has already made some noises about refusing to fund health care programs, and given the party's desperation to please its right-wing base, it stands to reason Republicans would gladly shut down the government as a means towards obstructing the agenda approved in 2009 and 2010. If I were laying odds, I'd say the chances of a prolonged government shutdown next year are well over 50% -- if there's a Republican majority, that is. —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)
THE WRONG NBPP QUESTION.... In general, most legitimate news outlets have treated the right's hyperventilating the phony New Black Panthers Party "controversy" as unimportant. The restraint is welcome -- the rule usually is that whatever conservatives are worked up about necessarily must be taken seriously. Of course, in this matter, it helps that a) the underlying accusation is transparently foolish; and b) there's bipartisan agreement, even from Fox News contributors, that this is a non-story. But the Washington Post has taken a slightly different tack. The paper ran an article on Thursday, which at least referenced the baseless nature of the accusations, but which nevertheless characterized the overwrought complaints as a "political bombshell." Today, the paper's ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, who seems sympathetic to far-right media complaints with increasing frequency, argues the Post should have acted sooner.
As it happens, I had the opposite reaction. While the Post, at least the print edition, wisely ignored a story that no serious person finds credible, it eventually pointed to a "bombshell" that doesn't really exist. The question isn't, "What took the Post so long?"; it's, "Why'd the Post cave to Fox News viewers?" Alexander added, in reference to J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who's doing his best to push the trumped up allegations:
Too late; he already has been. More than once. In reference to the article the Post ran this week, Alexander concluded:
Really? Like what? Observers from across the ideological spectrum have concluded there's nothing left to explore, because there's no real controversy here. This isn't just the judgment of liberal bloggers; it's the conclusion reached by conservatives who want to go after the Obama Justice Department over real issues, rather than racially-motivated nonsense. The pattern here is a familiar one: "Fox News picks up a story from the conservative media, then attacks the 'mainstream media' for ignoring the distorted story." Media outlets with professional standards need not play the game. —Steve Benen 9:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
STATISTIC OF THE DAY.... During George W. Bush's two terms as president, he spent all or part of 977 days at Camp David or at a ranch in Texas. That's the equivalent of more than two and a half years, and it set a modern record -- no president has taken more time off than Bush since records started keeping track of such things. With that in mind, it's amazing to see this become a topic of conversation.
Of all the things for Republicans to whine about, this is the new complaint? In his first 18 months in office, Obama has taken 65 days off. At this point in Bush's first term, he'd taken 216 days off -- well over triple Obama's total.* Republicans seem to be arguing that it's different now, because the current president takes occasional breaks while there's an oil spill in the Gulf. But Bush took 216 days off in his first 18 months -- a period that included the attacks of 9/11 and the launch of a war in Afghanistan. Hell, a terrorist tried to blow up an American passenger jet in December 2001, and Bush not only stayed on vacation, he didn't even mention the incident for nearly a week. There have to be more interesting lines of attack for the GOP. This is mind-numbing. * Update: The 216-days-off figure came by way of CNN, who said it was the number tallied by CBS's Mark Knoller. However, reader S.S. emails to note that the number may be inflated -- the AP puts the total for Bush at this stage at 120. That's still about double Obama's total, but it's clearly far short of the figure CNN cited. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)
WHEN EXTREMISTS FIND ONE OF THEIR OWN TOO EXTREME.... Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams has made quite a name for himself since becoming a leader of the right-wing "movement." His CNN appearance in September is still hard to forget -- Williams not only called the president a "Nazi," but agreed with his own characterization of Barack Obama as "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief." This week, however, Williams seemed to push his luck, lashing out at the NAACP, first insisting that the civil rights organization makes "more money off of race than any slave trader, ever," and then publishing a racially-charged blog post, accusing the NAACP of being "racist." In the larger context, the NAACP hoped to shine a light on the racism that too often appears within the Tea Party "movement." Williams went on the attack, and in the process, inadvertently helped bolster the NAACP's point. As a result, even right-wing Tea Partiers have decided they may not want to be associated with one of their ostensible leaders.
When even the Tea Party crowd wants to keep one of their own leaders at arm's length, it suggests Mark Williams has become something of an embarrassment, and undermined his "movement" in the process. —Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
July 17, 2010
ELECTION DRAWS CLOSER, OBAMA UPS THE RHETORICAL ANTE.... For the past couple of weeks, most Democrats and many on the left have been outraged by Republicans' willingness to block extended aid to the unemployed, while simultaneously pushing for massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Today, President Obama expressed that same indignation in his weekly address. In general, these weekly messages from the president aren't especially acerbic, but as the election season intensifies, and Obama's patience for GOP tactics wears thin, I suspect we'll see the president throwing more elbows the way he did today. In this address, Obama noted struggling businesses and workers looking for relief. "For months," the president said, "that's what we've been trying to do. But too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences." After noting some of the steps Democrats want to take to help small businesses, Obama added, "[A]gain and again, a partisan minority in the Senate said 'no,' and used procedural tactics to block a simple, up-or-down vote." To hear the president explain it, the GOP doesn't even get the basics right: "Some Republican leaders actually treat this unemployment insurance as if it's a form of welfare. They say it discourages folks from looking for work. Well, I've met a lot of folks looking for work these past few years, and I can tell you, I haven't met any Americans who would rather have an unemployment check than a meaningful job that lets you provide for your family. And we all have friends, neighbors, or family members who already knows how hard it is to land a job when five workers are competing for every opening. "Now in the past, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is -- an emergency expenditure. That's because an economic disaster can devastate families and communities just as surely as a flood or tornado. "Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that. They say we shouldn't provide unemployment insurance because it costs money. So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they've finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed. They've got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don't need them and didn't even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help." Obama went on to explain the stimulative nature of extended unemployment benefits -- a detail the GOP usually forgets -- and urged lawmakers not to "go back to the same misguided policies that led us into this mess." In the larger context, the president is really just asking for the bare minimum here -- aid for the jobless and loans for small businesses. What I'd really like to see is the White House craft an ambitious jobs/stimulus bill with a demand that Congress vote on it before wrapping up for the year. Give Democrats something to fight for, and the base something to get excited about. That said, Obama's clearly right to demand that Congress at least tackle jobless aid and small businesses loans -- and soon. Just as importantly, it's heartening to hear the president call Republicans out with more partisan rhetoric than we're accustomed to. More of this, please. —Steve Benen 11:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
KARL ROVE'S 'BIGGEST MISTAKE'.... The key to dealing with Karl Rove's presence in American politics is understanding the role he plays. Once one fully appreciates the extent to which he's a poison in our democracy, smearing our institutions with a pernicious venom, it becomes easier to endure his nonsense without developing an antacid addiction. But once in a while, Rove's pathological tendencies are a little harder to take. This week, for example, the man affectionately called "Turd Blossom" by his boss, used one of his media perches to highlight his "biggest mistake in the White House." It was a provocative headline, suggesting Rove might actually offer some regret about one of his many damaging missteps, or at least acknowledge an instance in which he was wrong. What we found, however, was the opposite. Rove's "biggest mistake," he said, was not fighting harder against Democrats who questioned Bush's honesty on the war in Iraq. His column came seven years to the day after Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) concluded that Bush and his team "put a spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth." It wasn't long before this obvious truth became the standard position of the Democratic mainstream. Rove, in retrospect, believes the real problem wasn't the Bush White House's deceptions, but rather, the Bush White House's tolerance for those who pointed out those deceptions. (thanks to reader F.B. for the reminder)
I honestly can think of very few people in American public life who lies as frequently and shamelessly as Karl Rove, making his admonishments as ironic as they are infuriating. In Rove's bizarro world, it wasn't Bush's spectacular failures that undermined the nation, it was the nerve of Democrats to point out that nearly all of the claims the former president made about a war turned out to be false. In this strange alternate reality, those who lied and failed are the heroes, while those who called out the liars "lost their honor and blackened their reputations." It's quite literally nauseating. But as long as Rove's interested in the anniversary of Ted Kennedy's criticism, let's also note what else happened the week of July 15, 2003. The estimable emptywheel reminds us that the day before Kennedy pointed to the Bush administration's falsehoods, a column from Bob Novak ran, outing Valarie Plame as a CIA operative. It was published soon after Karl Rove and his fellow hatchetmen worked the phones, leaking classified information, including an effort to punish and discredit Plame's husband for telling the truth about Saddam Hussein's non-existent nuclear program. But now Rove would have us believe the White House decided not to respond to critics. Karl, get help. It's just not healthy to be this far detached from reality. Postscript: By the way, if you wanted to help remind Rove of what his actual "biggest mistake" might be, feel free to leave suggestions in the comments section. —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
PUTTING AN END TO A RIGHT-WING 'FANTASY'.... If you haven't heard much hyperventilating about the New Black Panther Party lately, then you haven't been watching Fox News. The "story," such as it is, hardly seems worth a fuss. On Election Day 2008, two men were recorded standing in front of a polling station in Philadelphia. They were reportedly members of the New Black Panther Party, which didn't necessarily support Barack Obama anyway, and one of the two was holding a nightstick. No voters complained, but a few Republican poll monitors accused the pair of criminally trying to intimidate voters. Officials in Bush's Justice Department looked into it and concluded it wasn't worth pursuing. That should be the end of it, but in some Republican circles, this exceedingly dull story is being treated as a major scandal (at least, they're pretending to consider it a scandal, in the hopes of generating racial tensions before the midterm elections). In just the last few weeks, Fox News has aired 95 segments -- that's not a typo -- about the issue. Megyn Kelly, the hyper-partisan activist/anchor, not only aired 45 segments in 15 days, she lashed out at a conservative guest who dismissed the relevance of the story. To his credit, Politico's Ben Smith ran a piece late yesterday that effectively ends the "controversy."
Those pushing this garbage aren't exactly subtle in their intentions. Why hyperventilate about a two-year-old story that Bush's own Justice Department found too insignificant to care about? Because some Republicans hope to generate racial animus before the elections, trying to get white voters angry with the Obama administration. Jon Chait explained this week, "What you're starting to see from Fox News now, though, is the most widespread and mainstream right-wing effort to exploit racial fears against Obama.... There has been a great deal of right-wing insanity unleashed over the last year and a half, but this is the first time that the fear has an explicitly racial cast. You now have the largest organ of movement conservatism promoting Limbaugh's idee fixe that the Obama administration represents black America's historical revenge against whites." It's as disgusting as anything we've seen from the right in the past 18 months. —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a fairly contentious dust-up in progressive faith communities after the latest offensive from deranged media personality Glenn Beck. Beck picked the fight in March, urging his followers to abandon houses of worship that believe in "social justice," which he considers to be code for some kind of communist plot. Time's Elizabeth Dias reported this week that Beck is growing increasingly agitated about churches whose commitment to the downtrodden and powerless he finds politically offensive.
Beck's attacks on churches that preach about social justice have generated a strong response from Faithful America, which unveiled a new Christian radio ad campaign this week, airing spots in several cities Beck visits on his national summer tour. As Faith in Public Life explained this week, "The ads are part of Faithful America's 'Driven by Faith, Not by Fear' campaign, an effort to counter the fear, lies and hateful rhetoric of extreme pundits and the Tea Party." The radio ad, which you can listen to here, asks listeners, "Would you support a leader who said Jesus' teachings can lead to Nazism, or who attacks Christians pastors for preaching the full gospel? Then why do so many Christians tune in to Glenn Beck?" Also from the God Machine this week: * In the wake of its international scandal involving the sexual abuse of children, the Vatican this week "issued new internal rules making it easier to discipline priests who have sexually abused minors." But in a move that "infuriated victims' groups and put United States bishops on the defensive, it also codified 'the attempted ordination of women' to the priesthood as one of the church's most grave crimes, along with heresy, schism and pedophilia." Victims' advocates were also disappointed by the new rules' omission of possible punishment of bishops who looked the other way when priests molested children on their watch, and the failure to require "mandatory reporting of sex abuse to civil authorities even in countries where it is not required by civil law." * In Nevada, the Canyon Ridge Community Church has offered support to pastor Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan anti-gay activist helping drive the country's "kill the gays" bill. As a result, the Southern Nevada Health District in Las Vegas will no longer work with the church on public health issues. * And working under the assumption that AIPAC "pulls some punches," the Emergency Committee for Israel is getting to work, combining the efforts of far-right neocons like Bill Kristol, and evangelical Christians like Gary Bauer. (thanks to D.J. for the tip) —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
BOEHNER'S DEREGULATION AGENDA.... It's been challenging to keep up with Republican jaw-droppers of late. A leading GOP lawmaker is apologizing to BP? Well, that'll be tough to top. The would-be Speaker is dismissing the importance of the financial crisis? Wow. The entire party believes the nation can't afford unemployment benefits, but can afford $678 billion in tax cuts for the rich? That seems tough to spin. But yesterday's remarks from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) deserve a place on the growing list. Boehner organized a Washington event yesterday with business lobbyists, encouraging them to help shape the still-non-existent Republican policy agenda. The lobbyists decried consumer protection and workplace safety regulations, and like a puppet whose strings had been pulled, Boehner rushed to a microphone to declare:
To be clear, Boehner hasn't been saying this all along. He only adopted this remarkable position because lobbyists, in effect, told him to. It's Boehner's brand of leadership in a nutshell -- elect him Speaker, so he can serve as the mindless, toadying middleman between corporate interests and the policymaking process. Even for Boehner, this is pretty crazy. David Kurtz suggested it's the "dumbest idea of the year."
That may sound like an exaggeration, but federal regulations are a driving force of what the government does. Hundreds of agencies are responsible with crafting regulations every day for everything from veterans' care to law enforcement to immigration to food safety. Boehner's willingness to impose a flat ban is just plain nuts. The office of the actual Speaker took a few minutes to review some pending regulations, and noticed that Boehner's plan would shut down proposed safety standards for baby cribs, greater transparency for government contracting, and expanded consumer protections for air travelers. As a rule, these are the kinds of regulations voters tend to like -- and rely on. For context, I should note that Boehner's deregulation agenda, while bizarre, isn't entirely new. A nearly identical plan was pushed 15 years ago ... by disgraced former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who shaped his plan after a meeting with business lobbyists, soon after the GOP had won its House majority. DeLay, at the time, said a moratorium on regulations would give officials "breathing room." Sound familiar? The Republican agenda of the 21st century -- start with a base of Bush/Cheney, throw in a heaping tablespoon of Tom DeLay, and add just a pinch of the John Birch Society. Heat to a boiling point and serve. —Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
PRIVACY RIGHTS (FOR SOME) RESTORED IN ARIZONA.... Thank goodness Arizona is once again taking due process and privacy rights seriously.
Arizona has been using 76 cameras, which in turned improved public safety, produced a significant drop in fatal collisions, and brought $78 million into the paltry state coffers. But according to her spokesperson, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) was, among other things, "uncomfortable with the intrusive nature of the system." It's a sentiment that widely endorsed by conservatives in the state legislature. Of course, if there's one thing conservative Arizonans know all about, it's intrusive state laws. I'm reminded of this recent exchange between state Rep. Carl Seel (R), a leading critic of the remote speed cameras and a co-sponsor of Arizona's anti-immigrant law, and The Daily Show's Olivia Munn: MUNN: So, is it a conflicting message to support immigration law 1070 and also be against the camera system? SEEL: No, the photo radar [is] unconstitutional, definitely an invasion of privacy. As to 1070, the enforcement law, the police officers must have probable cause. MUNN: Such as. SEEL: If a vehicle is going down the road at an excessive rate of speed, that's probable cause. MUNN: What the [bleep]? So, speeding is probable cause to check immigration status, but speeding is not probable cause to give you a ticket for speeding. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
July 16, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Not awful, but not quite the results we were hoping for, either: "The federal pointman for the BP oil spill says results are short of ideal in the new cap but the oil will stay shut in for another 6 hours at least. Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said on a Friday afternoon conference pressure readings from the cap have not reached the level that would show there are no other leaks in the well." * Maybe now the Fed can stop worrying about inflation? Please? "We aren't technically in a period of deflation yet, as core inflation continues to remain positive. But last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said this morning, the United States experienced the third straight month of technical deflation, with the price of consumer goods falling 0.1 percent." * Public support for the U.S. policy in Afghanistan is not only faltering, it's reaching new lows. * It was the warmest June on record. If only 60 senators cared. (thanks to R.K. for the tip) * American soldier suicides: "Soldiers killed themselves at the rate of one per day in June making it the worst month on record for Army suicides, the service said Thursday." * Bybee speaks: "A former Bush Justice Department official who approved brutal interrogation methods by the C.I.A. has told Congress that he never authorized several other rough tactics reportedly inflicted on terrorism suspects -- including prolonged shackling to a ceiling and repeated beatings." * Argentina joins the fairly small group of countries that have embraced marriage equality. It's the first country, however, to do so in Latin America. * One of the standard GOP talking points on tax rates for the wealthy is to express concern for small businesses. Don't believe it. * Ta-Nehisi Coates on the dispute between Tea Partiers and the NAACP. * Chris Hayes on the similarities between the argument on deficit reduction and the argument to sell the war in Iraq. * Wouldn't Elizabeth Warren be a fine choice to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Board? * Community colleges may be hot, but they're really going to have to pick up their game. * Apparently, an aide to former one-term Gov. Mitt Romney (R) had some unkind words about former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R). A Palin aide talked to Politico, which published my favorite sentence of the day: "'For Washington consultants to sit around and personally disparage the Governor anonymously to reporters is unfortunate and counterproductive and frankly immature,' the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, continued." Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
THE PROBLEM WITH SHORT MEMORIES.... Given all the public confusion, it's sometimes surprising President Obama's approval rating isn't lower. Take this tidbit from the latest Pew Research report.
I guess the frequent Republican complaints about "bailouts" led much of the public to not only forget what year TARP passed, but also forget who supported it. For the record, the financial industry bailout 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). At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot less than 34% of Americans knew this, too. Is it any wonder Republican attack ads routinely try to exploit public confusion? The GOP assumes voters have short memories, and under the circumstances, that's not a bad assumption. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)
WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG.... The Senate Democratic leadership intends to bring an energy/climate bill to the floor a week from Monday. The details of the bill's contents are still in flux, and it's far from clear that the majority will be able to assemble the support to overcome yet another Republican filibuster. But it's worth keeping in mind that the problem is not limited entirely to Republicans.
That's not exactly encouraging. As Jon Chait explained, "Actually, the time span between Harry Truman proposing universal health care and President Obama signing the Affordable care Act was more like 60 years. But that's okay! I'm sure nothing irreversible will happen to the atmosphere between now and 2070." Policymakers talked about health care reform for a century, as the system grew increasingly dysfunctional. When it comes to the climate, we already have a crisis. We're putting 90 million tons of carbon emissions into the air every day, and if McCaskill is content to let that continue for another five decades, she's making a terrible mistake. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) added that she'd like to see Congress take this up "in the early part of next year." Perhaps Feinstein hasn't heard, but November is likely to be pretty rough for Democrats, and the party that perceives climate science itself as a Marxist plot will probably make significant gains, if not take control over part (or all) of Congress. If Feinstein thinks the politics of an ambitious energy bill are difficult now, wait until the party that took BP's side in the oil spill crisis has more power over the policy debate. It's why the fierce urgency of now is largely unavoidable. Those hoping to make a positive difference don't have five decades, they have five weeks. If the Senate comes up short, the climate crisis will get worse, the solution will get tougher to achieve, and the politics will get worse. If this isn't obvious to policymakers, they're not paying close enough attention. As for the state of the debate, there have been some fairly constructive talks this week between utility companies and environmentalists on a plan to reduce carbon emissions that, they hope, could generate broad support. (The idea is, utility companies would be able to make the case to conservatives, while groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council can get the left on board.) Participants signaled cautious optimism, and are scheduled to reconvene on Monday. —Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
VITTER MANAGES TO SHED ANY PRETENSE OF CLASS.... In light of all his scandals, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) really should know better than to take cheap shots at women. But the right-wing senator who's been struggling to hold onto even a shred of decency just can't help himself. Greg Sargent reports today:
Look, I'm not exactly a neutral observer here; I consider Rachel Maddow a friend. But one need not know Rachel personally to be insulted by Vitter's cheap and stupid remarks. At this point, it's hardly unreasonable to conclude David Vitter just has a problem when it comes to women. It's the kind of thinking that led him to betray his wife with prostitutes, and it's the kind of thinking that led him to pay a violent criminal to oversee women's issues for the Senate office, despite the aide having attacked his ex-girlfriend with a knife. Now Vitter's of the opinion that Rachel Maddow doesn't look like a woman? Are we to assume the right-wing senator is now taking an interest in the haircuts of media professionals? For crying out loud, Vitter's a United States senator. Given how humiliated he's been with his extra-curricular escapades, Vitter should be going out of his way to show at least a little class. Update: Vitter has apparently apologized to Rachel in a note. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
THE (TEMPORARY) SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.... West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) has selected Carte Goodwin, his former chief counsel, to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D).
MSNBC has a good bio on the 36-year-old Goodwin, who, despite experience in government, has never held elected office or worked as a lawmaker. Nevertheless, the early reports out of West Virginia suggest the selection is being well received, even by the state Chamber of Commerce. The plan is to swear Goodwin in on Tuesday afternoon, at which point the Senate Democratic caucus will once again stand at 59 members. His presence will probably be put to good use fairly quickly -- the leadership wants the Senate to vote on Tuesday on an extension of unemployment benefits, and Goodwin's vote will likely be necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster. The temporary senator will serve though November. —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.... You've probably seen this chart today; it's been making the rounds. But it's a stark and painful reminder of the scope of the nation's unemployment crisis. Just as importantly, it raises questions anew about why policymakers aren't acting.
The chart was put together by the Brookings Institute, and highlights how long it will take our economy to return to the unemployment levels that existed before the Great Recession began. If the economy added an average of 208,000 jobs per month -- a rate we're still not close to reaching -- it would take 136 months to get back to where we were. That translates to more than 11 years. That's not a typo. Moderate monthly job growth would get us back to a pre-recession job market in 2021. That's how deep a hole we fell into. Obviously, more robust economic growth would get us back to pre-recession levels much faster, but by any scenario, we're still years away. David Kurtz added, "Unless something changes -- and the deeply troubling current emphasis on deficit reduction suggests nothing will -- we're looking at a decade or more of chronically high unemployment. It's a situation that is not sustainable economically or politically." It's that point about deficit reduction that stands out for me. As awful as the realization is about how long it will take to recover, the insult that gets added to the injury is the fact that the status quo isn't perceived as necessarily scandalous or devastating. The Washington establishment sees the numbers, but doesn't feel the need to leap into action. On the contrary, we can't even extend unemployment benefits because Republicans won't let the Senate vote on them. When President Obama called on an emergency measure to prevent massive layoffs at the state level, Congress balked -- it was considered too tough a vote in advance of the elections. Additional stimulus and/or an ambitious jobs bill are effectively off the table entirely, in part because the GOP will refuse to allow a vote, and in part because Blue Dogs want to focus on deficit reduction and spending cuts. It doesn't have to be this way, but the political will to act doesn't exist, and the only segments of the public screaming for political attention are deeply confused anti-government zealots who want the unemployment crisis to be slightly worse. —Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
BOEHNER EYES A RETURN TO FAILED REGULATORY POLICIES.... One of the more commonly overlooked failures of the Bush/Cheney era was in the area of regulatory policy. Specifically, the administration didn't believe in it. From Wall Street to the oil companies, workplace safety to E. coli, EPA to SEC, the agencies tasked with protecting workers and consumers by regulating business practices were gutted. Budgets were slashed, scientists were muted, personnel were cut, and enforcement was stopped. President Obama has begun a large-scale effort to put things right, making the kind of changes that have an enormous impact on the public good, but which voters are largely unaware of. Whereas Republican administrations deliberately stunted federal regulatory power -- business interests always trumped consumer interests -- Obama is taking positive steps to emphasize strong federal oversight, and evidence-based analysis, with the public's interests in mind. Congressional Republicans saw the ways in which Bush's approach failed the public miserably, but nevertheless want to bring those days back as quickly as possible.
A representative of the American Hotel and Lodging Association actually complained about workplace-safety laws being enforced -- followed by complaints about those breaking the laws facing consequences. Boehner took the next logical step, explicitly endorsing "a moratorium on new federal regulations." I suspect much of the country gives very little thought to regulatory issues, and wouldn't necessarily recognize why this is radical and dangerous. I'll just put it this way: if you love lead paint from China, you'll love the Republican deregulation agenda. —Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
THE RATIONALE FOR KEEPING AN AGENDA SECRET.... Jonah Goldberg argued this week that the "party of no" strategy has been a great success for Republicans, but suggested it's time for the GOP to "call Obama's bluff and offer a real choice." By actually presenting a policy agenda, the GOP could achieve "a real mandate to be something more than 'not-Obama.'" That sounds about right to me. So, is there any chance congressional Republicans will take Goldberg's advice and tell voters what they'd do with power? Not so much. Yesterday, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) endorsed the notion of the GOP giving "certain specifics" about what the party supports, but he doesn't want to see his party go into too many details.
Heaven forbid. As King sees it, Republicans could present an agenda, giving the electorate a sense of how the GOP would govern, but the fear is that the party's ideas might become "a campaign issue." Perhaps King doesn't fully understand the words he's using here. If congressional Republicans have actual policy ideas -- a dubious proposition, to be sure -- they can offer them to voters as an alternative to the status quo. The media might scrutinize those ideas, but the GOP should welcome the chance to talk about the direction they'd take the country if given the chance. It's what elections are for. A party's ideas should be "campaign issues"; that's the point of campaigns. It's about having the courage of one's convictions. Deliberately hiding one's ideas for fear of examination is not only cowardice, it's indicative of a party that suspects its own beliefs would be rejected by the public. Of course, this isn't just about King. Note that would-be Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sat down with the Washington Post recently, and refused to give any details about how Republicans would govern. It's not a mystery why -- GOP proposals would likely cost the party dearly if the public got a chance to consider them -- but that's hardly a good excuse. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In Nevada, a new Las Vegas Review-Journal/Mason Dixon poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) taking the lead over Sharron Angle (R), 44% to 37%. It's Reid's best showing in a Mason-Dixon poll this cycle. * Multiple news outlets are reporting that West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) will appoint his former general counsel, Carte Goodwin, to temporarily fill the Senate vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D). At 36, Goodwin will be the youngest senator in the chamber, replacing the oldest. * In Colorado, Denver's Fox affiliate reported that the Republican Governor's Association has withdrawn its financial support of Scott McInnis' (R) gubernatorial campaign, and has begun cancelling fundraisers that were previously scheduled for him. McInnis has vowed to stay in the race. * Former Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor, who's taking on scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter in a Republican primary this year, explained yesterday that Vitter has failed to be an "effective senator," adding that the senator's missteps amount to more than "personal sins." Democrats have been saying the same thing for a long while. * In Connecticut, a new Quinnipiac poll shows state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) leading former wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R) in this year's U.S. Senate race, 54% to 37%. * In Wisconsin, two new polls offer conflicting results. A University of Wisconsin Badger Poll shows Sen. Russ Feingold (D) leading right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R), 33% to 28%. Rasmussen, which should still be taken with a grain of salt, shows Johnson up by one, 47% to 46%. * Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio has raised quite a bit of money for his U.S. Senate race, but he's spent nearly all of it already. * And the DNC this morning issued a memorandum, highlighting the differences between 2010 and the last two cycles in which Congress changed party hands (2006 and 1994). It concluded that there is no GOP "wave" on the way. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
KRAUTHAMMER LOOKS AHEAD, SEEMS WORRIED.... Going through Charles Krauthammer's latest column with a scalpel, it's easy to find more than a few errors of fact and judgment. But it's the larger point that's a bit of a surprise. The errors, to be sure, are glaring. Krauthammer misstates the scope of the Affordable Care Act, exaggerates the size of the Recovery Act, misleads on energy policy, blames this president for the last president's deficits, takes a foolishly alarmist line on "national insolvency," and seems oddly confused about Medicare reductions. And while an abundance of mistakes tends to undermine the quality of a column, Krauthammer nevertheless gets around to saying something interesting. In particular, the far-right pundit explains, "I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama."
That strikes me as reasonable advice. Krauthammer makes a variety of other predictions -- most are misguided -- but he concludes that the president has invested his political capital and will spend the next couple of years "consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two." That sounds about right. The columnist sounds genuinely concerned. It's probably a good sign. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
GOP SEEMS SERIOUS ABOUT 'REPEALING' WALL STREET REFORM.... Before the Senate had even approved the legislation, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters that Republicans would like to "repeal" the Wall Street reform package. Soon after, President Obama noted, "[A]lready, the Republican leader in the House has called for repeal of this reform. I would suggest that America can't afford to go backwards, and I think that's how most Americans feel as well. We can't afford another financial crisis just as we're digging out from the last one." It seemed possible that Boehner's remark was just an off-the-cuff remark that the GOP would not repeat, but as it turns out, Republicans actually seem serious about this. George Stephanopoulos reported this morning:
I just didn't see this one coming. Much of the country is still deeply disgusted with a financial industry that nearly destroyed the global financial system, and then took a massive taxpayer bailout to survive. The circumstances that led to the 2008 crash included, at the heart of the matter, the wild-west like regulatory system, which allowed the industry to be as reckless and irresponsible as it wanted. The new legislation brings safeguards and accountability to a system that desperately needs it. And yet, the new Republican line is that they'll bring back the 2008 framework, if given a chance. Putting aside the fact that Obama would veto any kind of repeal attempts, I'm curious: who, exactly, is supposed to find this argument persuasive? Pat Garofalo highlights some of the consequences that would come with repealing the reform package. It wouldn't be pretty. —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
THE MOST CYNICAL OF CALCULATIONS.... Part of me wondered if, after the Senate overcame a Republican filibuster on Wall Street reform, several GOP senators would go ahead and vote for it. After all, at that point, everyone knew it would pass, and who wants to take a stand against safeguards and accountability for a financial industry that nearly collapsed the global economy? Republicans had done what they could to kill the legislation, but going ahead and supporting final passage was a freebie. Of course, that didn't happen, and only three Republicans broke ranks. An identical number of House Republicans voted with Democrats on the same bill a few weeks ago. With just four months to go before the midterm elections, what makes the GOP think it's a good idea to stand, en masse, with Wall Street lobbyists against a measure to bring greater economic security and stability in the wake of a crash? The AP reported yesterday that Republicans have a plan. It's predicated on exploiting public confusion.
Greg Sargent summarized the GOP line: "Never mind what the bill actually does. Never mind that the set of problems it's meant to address -- problems that brought about the near-collapse of our economy -- are also rather complex. As long as the public remains confused about it, so much the better for us!" Republicans aren't just treating the public like fools, they're counting on the public to be dupes. When an entire political party takes on the role of a con man, on purpose, because it sees the electorate as a bunch of suckers, it's really not healthy for the political system. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS ALSO THE RIGHT ONE.... It seems clear what the media considers the question of the week. The NYT's Sheryl Gay Stolberg notes a political dynamic today that seems pretty familiar.
Though the Stolberg piece was far more sensible, it considers the same question Politico asked yesterday. Obama keeps racking up breakthrough victories, the observation goes, and these successes are supposed to buoy a president's political standing, but polls nevertheless suggest Obama is on shaky ground. It's not necessarily an unfair question, but it's probably a mistake to treat it as some kind of mystery. Kevin Drum noted yesterday that the simplest explanation happens to be the right one.
Yep. The economy stinks, which puts a lot of Americans in a sour mood. Much of the public probably thought economic conditions would be a whole lot better by now, and voters are very likely feeling pretty impatient about the pace of progress. It's what happens when the unemployment rate hovers around 10% for a year, and "it could have been worse" fails to resonate. So, Obama's standing, while still reasonably high under the circumstances, has faltered, and Republicans stand to do well in November. It's not rocket science. Of course, as the economy improves and the unemployment rate drops, I'll look forward to the media coverage pondering how President Obama finally figured out how to start connecting with the public again. —Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
BEN NELSON AND 'DOING THE JOB' HE'S ELECTED TO DO.... Several months ago, as the Senate was getting ready to bring a health care reform bill to the floor, Republicans had vowed to filibuster the motion to proceed. In other words, every member of the Senate GOP caucus was not only prepared to block a vote on the legislation, they also wanted to block a vote on having a debate about the legislation. At the time, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) was far from sure about the bill, but balked at the Republican tack. The conservative Democrat said the motion was merely "to start debate on a bill and to try to improve it." He added, "If you don't like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it? Why would you stop senators from doing the job they're elected to do -- debate, consider amendments, and take action on an issue affecting every American?" I don't know, Ben, why would a member stop senators from doing the job they're elected to do?
Keep in mind, Nelson hasn't even seen the bill. But if the legislation tries to limit carbon emissions at all, he'll side with Republicans and try to prevent the Senate from even talking about the energy/climate bill. It's too soon to say how big a problem the vote on the motion to proceed might be. In 2008, a bipartisan climate bill was brought to the floor with overwhelming support, with Republicans approving the motion to proceed on the bill they opposed because they were anxious to attack it. That may yet happen again. But in the meantime, I'd love to hear Ben Nelson answer his own questions: "If you don't like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it? Why would you stop senators from doing the job they're elected to do -- debate, consider amendments, and take action on an issue affecting every American?" —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
GREENSPAN STEPS ALL OVER THE GOP MESSAGE.... One of the week's more relevant political debates has been over tax policy -- specifically the Republican argument that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have to be extended. Pressed on how those cuts would be paid for, the Republican leadership has insisted, evidence be damned, that tax cuts don't need to be offset by anything. Alan Greenspan is rarely helpful in debates like these, which is why it came as something of a pleasant surprise to see him reject the entire Republican line of thinking. (via Atrios)
It's worth noting that when it comes to tax cuts, Greenspan went even further than most Democrats want to go, arguing that all of Bush's tax cuts have to expire on schedule, including those for the middle class. The former Fed chairman said he wants to see tax rates return to '90s levels in order to curtail the deficit. I guess he hasn't heard the news about tax cuts paying for themselves? Joan McCarter added, "Of course, note that [Greenspan] doesn't say that he was instrumental in enacting those major tax cuts. Bygones." Right. The Bush tax cuts passed at least in part because Greenspan assured lawmakers the policy would improve the economy and that the nation could afford them. Republicans heralded his genius and followed his advice. We now know he, and they, were wrong. Now, however, comes the fun part. Nearly a decade after following his guidance and passing reckless tax cuts that failed to produce, Republicans on the Hill get to scramble to tell us that Alan Greenspan has no idea what he's talking about. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
July 15, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * As if this wasn't a big enough news day already, Goldman settles: "Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $550 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the largest penalty ever paid by a Wall Street firm, to settle charges of securities fraud linked to mortgage investments. Under the terms of the deal, Goldman will pay $300 million in fines to the Treasury Department, with the rest serving as restitution to investors in the mortgage-linked security. Goldman will not admit wrongdoing, though it will admit that its marketing materials for the investment 'contained incomplete information.'" * Still high, but much better: "Today, the Labor Department announced that weekly initial jobless claims had fallen to a nearly two-year low -- declining 29,000 to 429,000." The totals far exceeded expectations. * I guess Petraeus proved to be persuasive: "In a welcome step forward for the Obama administration's beleaguered war strategy, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has approved a U.S.-backed plan to create local defense forces across the country in an attempt to build grass-roots opposition to the Taliban, U.S. and Afghan officials said Wednesday." * On a related note, Fred Kaplan argues that Petraeus really has begun making improvements, "but they won't matter if Karzai doesn't reform." * House Ethics committee takes a closer look at eight House members "who solicited and took large contributions from financial institutions even as they were debating the landmark regulatory bill, according to lawyers involved in the inquiry." Five of the eight are Republicans, three are Democrats. * For the first time, First Lady Michelle Obama has issued a formal statement on pending legislation. In this case, she's praised the Improving Nutrition for America's Children Act, which was approved by the House Education and Labor Committee today. * Port au Prince, six months later. * An anti-Muslim ad from the well-funded, hysterical National Republican Trust PAC has been rejected by CBS and NBC. * How irresponsible are Republican demands for an extension of Bush's tax cuts? Even Alan Greenspan thinks the cuts should expire as scheduled. * You may have heard the rumor out of Minnesota that felons voting illegally helped propel Sen. Al Franken (D) to victory. Don't believe it. * Speaking of manufactured Fox News garbage, Jon Chait takes a look at the ridiculous New Black Panther Party "story" and "the most widespread and mainstream right-wing effort to exploit racial fears against Obama." * College attendance rates are higher than ever. Whether the students graduate is another matter. * I often wonder whether House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) believes his own nonsense. I'd feel better about him if I knew Pence was just deliberately trying to deceive the public. * And in response to the NAACP condemning Tea Partiers' racism, Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams is lashing out in jaw-dropping ways. Any chance Williams is a liberal plant, intended to make right-wing zealots look ridiculous? Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
OIL WELL SEALED (FOR NOW).... As of an hour ago, the wellhead gushing oil since the Deepwater Horizon explosion was fully contained.
Watching the live feed, it's clear the oil that was gushing into the Gulf of Mexico has, at least for now, stopped entirely. To put it mildly, it's a welcome sight. The new containment mechanism has been delayed a bit in recent days, but officials shut the various valves today as part of a long-awaited "integrity test," and so far, so good. The "pressure test" will continue over the next 48 hours. So, are we in the clear? Crisis over? Not yet. The seismic tests will tell us whether to the cap should stay on.
If the new mechanism either has to be removed or fails, MSNBC notes that BP still "expects to be able to siphon up most if not all of the oil starting next week." Also note, even under the best of circumstances, if the current containment mechanism continues to operate as it is right now, it's still not a permanent solution. That's likely to come from the relief wells, which are very close, but have been halted during the pressure test. For the first time in a long while, there's reason for optimism -- cautious optimism. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
WALL STREET REFORM BILL CLEARS CONGRESS, HEADS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.... It wasn't easy, and it took a little longer than expected, but one of the pillars of the Democratic agenda -- a sweeping Wall Street reform bill -- cleared Congress today, and is poised to become law.
"We all know Wall Street isn't going to reform itself," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today. "Those who vote 'no' are standing with the same bankers who gambled with our homes and economic security in the first place." The final roll found three Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.) -- joining the entire Democratic caucus, except Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), in supporting the bill. It now heads to the White House for President Obama's signature. There's some confusion, apparently, as to exactly when that will happen. The Hill reports that the president may sign the legislation into law today, while the New York Times reports it's likely to be next week. Given the fact that Obama is in Michigan today, I'd be surprised if the signing ceremony were ready for this afternoon. Either way, the reform package, formally called the "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act," represents the biggest regulatory change for the financial industry since the Great Depression. Kevin Drum had a good item recently, highlighting several of its key provisions. He concluded, "Given the alternatives, anyone who cares about financial reform should support this bill." In the larger context, Wall Street reform also gets added to the list of breakthrough accomplishments of the last 18 months, a list that now includes health care reform, an economy-saving Recovery Act, a long-sought overhaul of the nation's student-loan system, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, among other things. As Rachel Maddow recently observed, "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." Of course, the president's leadership made progress on this agenda possible, but kudos also obviously have to go to the House and Senate leadership, especially on Wall Street reform, which looked to be in deep trouble more than once. Time will tell what happens in the midterms, but Americans haven't seen a Congress as successful as 111th in at least a generation. —Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)
THE WISDOM OF A LIBERATED HOUSE REPUBLICAN.... Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) really is conservative. I think I could count all the genuine Republican "moderates" in Congress on one hand, and Inglis wouldn't even come close to making the cut. He's a conservative lawmaker from a conservative district with a conservative voting record and strong ratings from conservative groups that give scores to lawmakers. But now that Inglis is on his way out of Congress, he's sounding a whole lot more reasonable. Inglis, of course, was recently humiliated in a GOP primary, losing by a ridiculous 42-point margin in a district he's represented for more than a decade. What precipitated such a defeat? Inglis expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on energy policy; he urged his constituents not to take Glenn Beck too seriously; and he said his main focus as a lawmaker was to find "solutions" to problems. Last year, Inglis said the Republican Party has a chance "to understand we are all in need of some grace." The result: GOP voters turned on him. As his congressional career wraps up, the conservative South Carolinian is finding it much easier to speak his mind. Ben Armbruster flagged Inglis' appearance on C-SPAN today, where he didn't hold back. On Sen. David Vitter's (R-La.) support for birther lawsuits:
On his caucus' political strategy:
On the right's Community Reinvestment Act talking point:
This is the same Inglis who, just last week, trashed conservative "demagoguery" during the health care debate; conceded that some of the right's hatred of President Obama in the South is driven by racism; and said, "I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those (television and talk radio) personalities and not leading." I can't help but wonder how many other Republican members of Congress would be willing to endorse Inglis' sentiments, if they knew it wouldn't end their careers in GOP politics.
HEADLINE OF THE DAY.... McClatchy's headline says quite a bit: "GOP: No more help for jobless, but rich must keep tax cuts." That says quite a bit, doesn't it? Republicans will no doubt howl about "bias," but the article actually just presents facts as they exist. Whether reality has a liberal bias is up to voters to decide.
The article is filled with various rationalizations to justify this. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), for example, thinks this makes sense because "tax policy is dynamic." Good to know. It's generally hard to guess what the public will find compelling, but if I had to guess, I'd say more Americans would rather spend $33.9 billion for extended unemployment benefits than $678 billion for tax cuts for the wealthy. It's probably why the McClatchy article will be discouraging at RNC headquarters. Of course, if they Republican lawmakers don't like it, they could embrace a policy more in line with common sense, but that seems highly unlikely. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
THAT WAS QUICK.... A couple of hours ago, the Senate was able to put together 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster on Wall Street reform. This afternoon, the legislation, at long last, will get an up-or-down vote and then head to the White House for President Obama's signature. But before the Senate even votes, Republican leaders have already begun talking about -- what else? -- repeal.
GOP leaders can throw around silly "repeal" rhetoric when it comes to health care reform, in large part because an aggressive and dishonest campaign had made the Affordable Care Act controversial. The Republican base is pleased with the boasts, and most of the political mainstream doesn't take the promises seriously anyway. But talking about repealing Wall Street reform is much dumber, since the effort is far more popular. Boehner & Co. consistently forget this, but Americans still tend to be pretty annoyed with the financial industry that nearly destroyed the global economic system, and which was bailed out by taxpayers. The available evidence suggests voters want the new reform measures, if only to help keep the industry that ran wild in check. Arguing that new safeguards and accountability measures should be "repealed," before they even pass, makes it sound as if Republicans -- if given a chance by voters -- plan to go out of their way to look out for the Wall Street lobbyists and hedge fund managers that brought the system to the verge of collapse. (Those would be, by the way, the same Wall Street lobbyists congressional Republicans huddled with when plotting how best to kill reform legislation.) Boehner's remarks aren't surprising, of course. He did, after all, recently suggest accountability measures are a "nuclear weapon," being used to kill "an ant." But it's nevertheless a message Republicans may not want to take to the public: "Vote GOP: We'll put Wall Street safeguards back to 2008 levels!" —Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
A TOOL THAT WON'T BE AVAILABLE IN 2011.... The Democrats' House majority is the biggest in about 20 years, and the Dems' Senate majority is the biggest in three decades, but the legislative process has been anything but easy. Next year will almost certainly be worse. It didn't generate a lot of attention, but two weeks ago, the House voted 215 to 210 to approve a "budget enforcement resolution," which is sort of like passing a budget, but not entirely. As Ezra explained recently, "It does the main work of the budget, which is telling the appropriators how much money they have to spend, but it includes few details beyond that. The absence of those specifics means House Democrats aren't voting for a budget with a trillion-plus-dollar deficit, which is a vote they don't want to take, and it spares the House leadership the trouble of navigating the normal budget-related squabbles." The rationale is probably obvious -- House Dems are nervous enough, and saw a budget fight with a huge deficit as a sure loser in a tough election environment -- but the consequences are probably less well known. Annie Lowrey explains today that with no budget, there will be no Senate reconciliation efforts next year.
Trying to get anything done with a 59-vote caucus has proven to be excruciating for most of this Congress. With Republicans likely to gain seats in the Senate, it makes the prospect of any legislation passing next year seem fairly remote. Reconciliation would have helped, but it's now off the table. For what it's worth, Nate Silver thinks there's a 26% chance Senate Democrats will gain a seat in November, at least putting them in a position to overcome GOP obstructionism. But that still means there's a 74% chance the upper chamber will be even more dysfunctional next year. It probably won't be pretty. —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
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. * Sen. David Vitter (R) may be plagued by multiple scandals, but as the incumbent, it's largely assumed he'll enjoy the support of the party establishment, both in D.C. and Louisiana. But as of this week, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has declined to endorse Vitter in his primary campaign. * Democrats in Rhode Island hope to win back the governor's mansion this year, and those odds probably improved a bit yesterday when the party managed to avoid a primary. State Attorney General Patrick Lynch signaled his intention to end his campaign, clearing the way for state Treasurer Frank Caprio. * The sketchy infomercial probably didn't help J.D. Hayworth's Republican Senate bid in Arizona. A new Rocky Mountain poll shows incumbent Sen. John McCain (R) crushing his primary challenger, 64% to 19%. * It's a Democratic poll, not an independent one, but the latest numbers out of Nevada show Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading Sharron Angle (R), 44% to 40%. * On a related note, Angle is no longer threatening to sue Reid for re-publishing her old website online. In all seriousness, the Reid campaign has to be disappointed, because the lawsuit would have been campaign gold. * In Connecticut, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Ned Lamont leading Dan Malloy in a Democratic gubernatorial primary, 46% to 37%. Either Dem leads Tom Foley (R) by double digits in the general election. * Speaking of Connecticut, is former Rep. Rob Simmons (R), who suspended his Senate campaign six weeks ago, seriously thinking about getting back into the race? It sure sounds like it. * In North Carolina, the latest SurveyUSA poll shows incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R) leading Elaine Marshall (D), 46% to 36%. * And in Georgia's Republican gubernatorial primary, former Rep. Nathan Deal is slamming former secretary of state Karen Handel for not hating gay people. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (3)
DOES POLITICO ACTUALLY READ LIBERAL BLOGS?.... Following up on the last item, there was something else in that big Politico piece about the president's fortunes that rankled. John Harris and Jim VandeHei came up with six reasons why President Obama isn't faring better politically, and the fifth blamed "the liberal echo chamber."
This leaves me with the impression that John Harris and Jim VandeHei don't read many liberal blogs. I read quite a few, and their analysis strikes me as largely bizarre. There was plenty of coverage of Petraeus replacing McChrystal, but progressive critics of the U.S. policy in Afghanistan uniformly noted how little the war would change. There was plenty of coverage of the health care debate, but to argue, simply as a matter of fact, that that liberal blogs "barely clapped" when the Affordable Care Act became law is just ridiculous. There was plenty of coverage of Dave Weigel getting screwed, but to argue that liberal blogs are "largely averting their gaze" from the midterm cycle and Democrats' expected losses is completely at odds with reality. Greg Sargent nailed it: "It's one thing to criticize liberal bloggers for having unrealistic expectations, given whatever we're supposed to agree represents 'reality' in Washington.... However, to make the argument that liberal bloggers have their heads in the sand about Dem losses this fall is just flat out false. All VandeHarris are revealing is that they don't regularly read liberal blogs -- and that they know they can count on the fact that the Beltway insiders who will snicker knowingly about this article don't read liberal blogs either. And that's fine: Don't read them! But please don't make stuff up about them and call it journalism." * Yes, Politico managed to spell both Gen. McChrystal's and Gen. Petraeus's names wrong. Sure, I have more than my share of typos, but if I'm writing a piece for publication, I'm inclined to check the names of those with stars on their shoulders. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
'BIG-GOVERNMENT LIBERALS'.... It appears that the story of the day -- at least the one that's generating the most discussion in political circles -- is the big "Why Obama loses by winning" piece in Politico today. It covers a fair amount of ground, but it also includes a fair amount of misjudgments. The article, written by John Harris and Jim VandeHei, ostensibly seeks to explore why President Obama keeps racking up historic accomplishments, but is nevertheless struggling politically. We see that the left's unhappy; the right's enraged; "independents" (whatever that means) have "turned decisively against the man"; and House Dems "are in near-insurrection." Harris and VandeHei have come up with a half-dozen possible explanations, but some of their assumptions leave much to be desired.
Looking at "independents" as a coherent, self-contained group continues to be a mistake -- there are different kinds of independents, and most don't even agree with one another. But more importantly, Harris and VandeHei state, simply as fact, that the president "has shown himself to be a big-government liberal" on the economy. That's an exaggeration that badly misleads readers. Indeed, "big-government liberals" wanted a far bigger, more ambitious Recovery Act last year, but the president accepted a scaled-back package, despite the fears of White House economists, in order to overcome Republican obstructionism -- GOP "moderates" wouldn't let a better stimulus bill come up for a vote. The result was a Recovery Act that was very effective and did exactly what it set out to do, but has struggled to help generate a robust economic recovery because it needed to be bigger. In other words, Harris and VandeHei have it largely backwards. Obama would be in a stronger position if he was more of a "big-government liberal," not less. It's not just the stimulus, either. The White House has generally held back from pushing for more government intervention in the economy, in part because of legislative paralysis brought on by scandalous Republican obstructionism, and in part because the political team in the West Wing perceives the public as being hostile to more spending and higher deficits. Harris and VandeHei make it seem as if the president has been using Krugman columns and EPI reports as the administration's economic game plan. That's not even close to true. I've found some of Obama's moves to be terrific, and others far less so, but for Politico to simply accept as fact the notion that the president "has shown himself to be a big-government liberal" on the economy, which in turn sends voters fleeing in the other direction, just doesn't match up to reality. —Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS.... The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has sought accreditation from the United Nations for several years, in the hopes that it would be among the many non-governmental organizations to have input into the institution's debates. The Obama administration supports the IGLHRC's application, and a U.N. committee is expected to vote on the respected international gay rights group's application next week. This has sent some conservative Republican lawmakers scrambling to undermine the position of the United States. Specifically, Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) have sent letters to foreign delegations, hoping to find international allies to oppose next week's vote, arguing that advocacy of gay rights may ultimately undermine human rights. Rachel Slajda reported yesterday:
What's interesting to me is that conservative Republican lawmakers in the U.S. hope to find allies in foreign governments that conservative Republican lawmakers would generally disapprove of. This isn't uncommon. During the Bush/Cheney era, when conservatives pursued their agenda at the United Nations, they often did so by teaming up with Islamic theocracies. While U.S. allies took progressive approaches to forge international consensus on issues ranging from children's health to women's rights and global family planning, conservatives partnered with Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and Sudan -- because those were the countries most inclined to agree with the Republican line on social issues. Now, with the Obama administration moving in the opposite direction, and working with our traditional allies on progressive goals, U.S. lawmakers on the right have resorted to reaching out to countries like Saudi Arabia on their own. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
RAND PAUL, NOT EXACTLY 'FORTHRIGHT'.... Kentucky's Senate hopeful, right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R), used to be quite candid about his radical political beliefs. Social Security? It's a Ponzi scheme. Medicare? Obviously socialism. The Civil Right Act and Fair Housing Act? Both are examples of abusive government intervention. But as the Senate election draws closer, Paul's extremism has been muted. Talking to National Review, the Republican candidate effectively conceded he's trying to keep the truth from the public in order to get votes.
As a rule, candidates for statewide office don't admit to being less forthright, but Rand Paul is special. He could talk about his actual beliefs during the campaign, and try to persuade the public that he's correct, but the far-right Kentuckian has decided it's much easier to hide his principles to win votes. Of course, Rand Paul wasn't always a Senate candidate. Back in the 1990s, he appeared on several episodes of "Kentucky Tonight," a state-based public affairs show, and "talked about the elderly dying at the hands of Medicare rationing; the need to privatize Social Security, which he called 'a Ponzi scheme;' and the rights of the government to invest in racist companies." In one episode, he even equated Medicare with the Soviet Union. Voters won't hear much about this during the election -- Paul just isn't "forthright" enough. On a related note, Paul also insisted recently that he's running to help Kentucky get a better return on its federal tax dollars. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, "When tax money flows to the nation's capitol, half stays there, half is wasted and half of it goes to political cronyism, Paul said." Putting aside the fact that a dollar can't have three halves, Alan Pyke reminds the right-wing candidate, "When Kentucky sends a tax dollar to Washington, it does miraculously turn into three-halves of a dollar. Kentucky gets at least $1.51 back from the federal government for every $1.00 that it contributes to the nation, placing it near the top of state rankings. Paul is in effect saying that if he is Kentucky's next Senator, he will work to reduce his state's share of federal spending, thus hurting his own constituents." —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
WILL PLAGIARISM LEAD TO MCINNIS' OUSTER?.... If Republican Colorado gubernatorial hopeful Scott McInnis (R) expected his plagiarism controversy would be a one-day story, he's no doubt deeply disappointed. The scandal may even end his campaign. In the latest revelation, the engineer McInnis blamed for the plagiarism is pushing back, making a compelling case that the Republican is lying. The charge adds new pressures to a campaign that appears to be in deep trouble.
If the controversy does force McInnis from the race, the Denver Post reports that the state Republican Party faces a complicated procedural future. The conservative former congressman has been the presumptive gubernatorial nominee for quite a while, but the primary is not until Aug. 10. Most of the state will hold a vote-by-mail primary, and the ballots are due to go out by Monday. The state GOP doesn't have confidence that businessman Dan Maes, McInnis' Republican opponent, can win the statewide contest, but state law seems to suggest that the party can't appoint a nominee unless both Maes and McInnis drop out. Colorado Department of State spokesperson Rich Coolidge is apparently researching this point further. In the meantime, Republicans have already begun conversations with potential replacements. For its part, the Denver Post, Colorado's largest newspaper, has called on McInnis to quit the race: "After revelations of plagiarism and other cases of questionable judgment, it's clear the GOP candidate is not fit to be governor." —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
ECONOMIC ILLITERATES.... It hasn't been an especially good week for the Republican Party and economic literacy. Indeed, with each passing day, it appears the GOP simply has no idea what it's talking about when it comes to one of the nation's most pressing issues. It started with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisting that spending increases need to be paid for, but lawmakers shouldn't even try to pay for tax cuts. California Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina (R) soon followed, declaring, "You don't need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) soon added that Bush's tax cuts, which created huge deficits, actually "increased revenue." Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) agreed that "tax cuts should not have to be offset." Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) appeared on C-SPAN yesterday and managed to sound even dumber.
This makes absolutely no sense. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy were approved nearly a decade ago, and they helped add $5 trillion to the debt. They're now due to expire. If policymakers extend the cuts into the future, Coburn thinks it would cost literally nothing. He's only off by at least $678 billion. This week's developments have made abundantly clear that conservative Republicans don't care at all about reducing the deficit, but that's really just the beginning of the larger revelation here. By embracing economic gibberish with such enthusiasm, Republicans are also making it painfully obvious that they don't care about reality, either. Krugman's label -- "invincible ignorance" -- continues to ring true. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
July 14, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * On hold in the Gulf: "The government ordered BP to postpone a critical test on the runaway well in the Gulf of Mexico until scientists could determine whether the test on the new containment cap would not put damaging pressure on the well that could ultimately jeopardize the plugging of the leak. As of late Wednesday afternoon, BP officials and government scientists, including Energy Secretary Stephen Chu were meeting to discuss the test procedures, and how best to minimize any risks." * By another account, government officials are "conferring Wednesday with BP executives and engineers about whether, and how, to proceed with the all-important 'integrity test' that could temporarily shut down the well and could potentially throttle the flow permanently." * A devastating day in Afghanistan: "Eight American troops were killed in a series of attacks in southern Afghanistan, officials said Wednesday as Taliban militants pushed back against an effort to secure the volatile region." * Stimulus facts are stubborn things: "White House economists praised the government's $787 billion stimulus program as a success on Wednesday, saying it had saved or created 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs since it was signed a year ago.... The White House also estimated that gross domestic product, a measure of overall economic output, was 2.7 to 3.2 percent higher than it would have been without the stimulus. The new estimate is in line with projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office." * On a related note, Larry Summers is making the economic case for extended unemployment benefits. * Right off the bat, 41 million Americans will benefit from this: "From counseling for kids who struggle with their weight, to cancer screenings for their parents, preventive health care will soon be available at no out-of-pocket cost under consumer rules the Obama administration unveiled Wednesday. That means no copays, deductibles or coinsurance for people whose health insurance plans are covered by the new requirements." * Indeed, the list of changes that benefit consumers from the Affordable Care Act is surprisingly long. * The White House unveiled the "first formal national HIV/AIDS strategy, a plan that aims to reduce the number of new cases by 25 percent in the next five years, officials said." * Encouraging ruling: "A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a new Nebraska law requiring mental health screenings for women seeking abortions because the measure could have made it impossible to get an abortion in the state." * Dems hoped to convince Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to break from the GOP on a bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. That's not going to happen. * Matt Miller wonders why "America's business ingrates" are so irrationally hostile to the Obama administration. * Telling the truth about cheating in higher ed. * And in Mason City, Iowa, the North Iowa Tea Party purchased a billboard this week equating President Obama with Hitler and Lenin, declaring, "Radical Leaders Prey on the Fearful & Naive." The head of the right-wing group, responding to outraged responses, told the AP, "The purpose of the billboard was to draw attention to the socialism. It seems to have been lost in the visuals." The display is now being taken down, but it's a nevertheless a reminder of the seriousness of thought Tea Partiers bring to the table. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
BLEAK.... Gee, it sure does seem like this is the kind of news that might encourage policymakers to act.
So, the Fed isn't going to help. House Dems might want to do something, but a) a whopping 58 House Dems are under the impression voters care more about deficit reduction; and b) the caucus knows nothing can pass the Senate anyway. President Obama wants to do something, but he doesn't want to push for an economic measure that's going to fail on the Hill. Senate Dems might want to do something, but they don't have 60 votes, and would probably fail to hold onto Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Evan Bayh anyway. Republicans are more than content to see the economy deteriorate, because it's the centerpiece of their electoral strategy. Besides, with Dems fighting amongst themselves, GOP officials are giddy as children. So, with weaker growth and an unemployment crisis, political paralysis means ... nothing happens. That may seem overly harsh -- some things, like an extension of unemployment benefits, will probably pass next week -- but the economy needs a real boost, and it's not going to get one. Brian Beutler had a very good piece this today, explaining that even though Republican obstructionism is principally to blame, the result still "means we're not going to see much in the way of economy-improving legislation in the months ahead."
—Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
NO ONE CAN BE TOO RIGHT WING FOR CABLE NEWS.... Long-time readers may recall that I was the editor of Salon's now defunct "Blog Report" a few years ago, and highlighted posts from all kinds of blogs from across the political spectrum. As part of my duties, I read more than my share of far-right bloggers on a daily basis. Some were more "special" than others. "Atlas Shrugs" blogger Pamela Geller was, by a healthy margin, one of the most inflammatory websites I've ever seen. It's hard to do justice to a blog as radical as Geller's, but I'd note by way of an example that "Atlas Shrugs" published a 12,000-word post in 2008 that argued, in all seriousness, that Barack Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. So, what's Geller up to lately? She's apparently keeping busy on cable news.
Fox News isn't the only culprit here. MSNBC invited Geller on earlier today, as did CNN. NBC Nightly News had her on yesterday, which followed some Fox News appearances in May. Just to be perfectly clear, Geller has the right to use as much hateful rhetoric as she wants; it's a free country. I might find every word on the "Atlas Shrugs" blog deeply offensive, but if I don't like it, I don't have to read it -- she's free to publish whatever she finds noteworthy. But for major American media outlets to present her to the public as a credible voice, with something worthwhile to contribute to the public discourse, is a mistake. Media Matters put together some of her greatest hits -- she's called Obama "President Jihad," out to "appease his Islamic overlords" -- and the over-the-top vitriol is enough to make even a House Republican blush. Granted, I don't expect too much from the networks in terms of discretion. Erick Erickson called retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter a "goat f--king child molester," and praised protesters for "tell[ing] Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel," and CNN put him on the payroll, praising his "important voice." I am, however, reminded of a piece Rick Perlstein wrote about a year ago. Hysterical right-wing extremism isn't new, he noted, but how it's treated is.
In the 21st century, we now know, no one on the right can be considered "out of bounds." —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
IF POLITICS DOESN'T WORK OUT, SHE COULD ALWAYS BE A TELEVANGELIST.... Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, has largely dropped her self-imposed boycott of media interviews, but she's still very selective about whom she's willing to engage. Today, for example, Angle was willing to talk to radical TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. CBN's David Brody, to his credit, brought up the fact that there's a "perception" that Angle is "avoiding those mainstream media outlets" by limiting herself to Fox News and other conservative outlets. He noted, for example, that she isn't "going on 'Meet the Press' or a 'This Week,' those type of news shows." Angle replied that she only wants to talk to media that will let her beg for cash.
I guess, then, that the Christian Broadcasting Network is one of those outlets that doesn't mind being used by Angle as part of a fundraising ploy. In this sense, I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed: Angle, for her willingness to only appear on programs that let her shamelessly beg for money; or the news outlets that actually agree to go along with this and allow the crazed candidate to treat their interviews as a telethon? When it comes to the latter, note that Angle chatted with Fox News' Neil Cavuto this week, and the very first words that came out of her mouth were, "Well, first of all, Neil, it's great to be on your show to talk about this campaign against Harry Reid who needs $25 million -- and I have been saying I only need a million people to send $25 to SharronAngle.com." Eric Hananoki notes that Angle "also made fundraising pitches on Hannity and Fox & Friends." Whether Sharron Angle could function as a United States senator is unclear, but her future as a televangelist appears bright. —Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
MAKING TIME FOR ENERGY.... President Obama hosted a White House meeting yesterday with Senate Democratic leaders, exploring what can and should be passed over the next two weeks. There was agreement on three measures to be completed before lawmakers break for their August recess: (1) Wall Street reform, which should pass tomorrow; (2) extending unemployment benefits, which will likely pass on Tuesday; and (3) tax breaks intended to boost small-business lending. Based on accounts, the discussion focused on the very short-term, and a pending energy/climate bill was not part of the meeting. But that doesn't mean the issue is dead, only that it won't be finished before lawmakers break for August. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that work on the energy bill will begin before the recess -- probably the week of the 26th -- to be completed when lawmakers return. But that's not until Sept. 13, and the schedule will be very crowded, especially with the Kagan nomination and spending bills for the wars on deck. Today, President Obama signaled his desire to make sure the energy bill doesn't slip through the cracks.
The hope, apparently, is to keep cap-and-trade so narrow, some Republican votes -- specifically Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown -- might be in play, at least enough to let the Senate have an up-or-down vote. How narrow? Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are circulating the latest draft of their cap-and-trade measure, which has been scaled back to the much-discussed "utilities only" approach. Andrew Restuccia has a copy of the language making the rounds. As for the rest of the possible legislative wish list, it's probably safe to assume that immigration reform will not make any progress for the rest of this session. —Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
TAKING CREDIT FOR MEASURES THEY OPPOSED.... With opposition to the Affordable Care Act fading, I suppose it's inevitable that Republicans who tried everything to kill reform would adjust their rhetoric. But that's no excuse for GOP lawmakers taking credit for health care provisions they opposed. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), for example, thinks the new law's preventive health provisions are just terrific.
Kyl boasted, "Well, one of the things we did in the health care legislation was to provide a lot of different incentives for preventive care, for screening to try to help people avoid illnesses on the theory that it would be a lot cheaper if we didn't do a lot of treatment that was unnecessary." What does Kyl mean by "we"? He tried to kill the legislation, and has co-sponsored legislation to repeal it. The preventive service provisions aren't something "we" -- lawmakers including Kyl -- did in health care reform; they're provisions Democrats passed over Republican objections. Worse, there seems to be a trend in this direction. In March, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa touted some of the benefits of the law he tried to destroy, and a month later, bragged in a press release about how the Affordable Care Act would help rural Iowans on Medicare. Soon after, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said some of the popular provisions in the new law "came from Republicans." This came a few weeks after Boehner characterized the new law as "Armageddon." Look, this isn't complicated. Those who fought like hell to kill health care reform shouldn't go around boasting about all the good it's doing. It's a simple rule: if you vote against landmark legislation, don't claim credit for what's in it. —Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
LAME DUCKS.... Depending on how the rest of the year's schedule comes together, it's possible that there will be a lame-duck legislative session on Capitol Hill after the midterm elections. Republicans are starting to throw a fit about the possibility.
Boehner added, "People have a right to know that Congress will respect their will, whatever it is." There are a couple of angles to consider here. First, for Boehner to talk about Congress respecting the will of voters seems oddly amusing. In 2008, Democratic candidates had a massive electoral victory -- Barack Obama's 52.8% of the popular vote was the highest of any candidate in either party in 20 years, and congressional Democrats won the biggest majority either party has seen in a generation. The result was the first modern example of an entire political party -- John Boehner's political party -- declaring that elections don't have consequences, and that Congress need not respect voters' will. Second, if Boehner wants to talk about abusing lame-duck legislative sessions, we can have that conversation. In 1998, most voters were unimpressed, to put it mildly, with the Republican crusade against Bill Clinton. In the midterms, Americans sent a pretty clear message -- in a historical rarity, the party that controlled the White House gained congressional seats in the sixth year of a presidency. It was a stinging rebuke of the GOP and its excesses. House Republicans responded by impeaching the president anyway -- relying on a lame-duck session to ram impeachment through the chamber quickly, before newly-elected lawmakers could take office. Did Boehner say at the time that Congress should respect voters' will, "whatever it is"? Was he worried about it looking like "a 'sour grapes' session"? No, he voted instead to impeach the president in the lame-duck session. In other words, spare America the lecture, Boehner. —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
DOUBLING DOWN ON FAILURE.... There was a six-year stretch in which the Bush/Cheney administration got most of what it wanted from Congress. It was as explicit an example, perhaps ever, of conservative Republicans governing exactly as they had always wanted to. The results were nearly catastrophic, and the nation learned a valuable lesson -- the right's ideas, when put in practice, don't work. And yet, with just four months to go before the midterm elections, Republican candidates seem to seriously believe if we just go back to the policies that didn't work, we'll all be better off. Karl Rove wants Republicans to promise to return to Bush's economic agenda; several conservative candidates want to bring back Bush's Social Security agenda; and in Florida, Marco Rubio wants to bring back Bush's tax agenda.
Remember, National Review recently singled out Rubio as someone who is "geniunely [sic] interested in nitty-gritty of public policy," and "a true policy wonk." Except, he's not. Bush's tax policies failed to deliver the robust economic growth the right promised, and led to the weakest decade of job growth in generations. While the right heralded these tax policies as a triumph when they were approved, the results were a disaster -- enormous deficits, trillions of dollars in additional debt, an exacerbated gap between the rich and poor, and a devastating recession. Marco Rubio thinks the policies that produced these results simply need to be brought back, and tried again. Indeed, as Pat Garofalo noted, "The cuts that Rubio proposes would also spend trillions of dollars while overwhelmingly sending the benefits to the very rich. In fact, at the 2009 level, the estate tax only affects the richest 0.2 percent of households in the country. So Rubio would spend billions on the hope that a tiny percentage of the population creates some jobs." On a related note, how would Rubio, a self-proclaimed deficit "hawk," pay for his Bush-inspired tax agenda? He hasn't said. Imagine that.
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Some folks have a one-track mind.
And to think the Senate will be deprived of Bunning's wisdom next year. Speaking of the estate tax, Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) continue to go to bat for billionaires, and are pushing a revamped proposal that would phase in exemptions over the next decade. The goal is "to make the short-term cost of the bill appear smaller." I feel better already. How would Kyl and Lincoln pay for the tax break that benefits the wealthiest of the wealthy? They wouldn't. As Kyl has made clear, conservatives believe paying for tax cuts is pointless. —Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * In Nevada, Rasmussen found three weeks ago that former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R) led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) by seven, 48% to 41%. The pollster now finds Angle up by three, 46% to 43%. * A new Reuters/Ipsos poll in Florida shows Gov. Charlie Crist (I) leading this year's Senate race with 35% support, followed by Marco Rubio (R) at 28%, and Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) with 17%. * Speaking of Florida, the same poll shows state CFO Alex Sink (D) narrowly leading state AG Bill McCollum (R) in this year's gubernatorial race, 31% to 30%. But when Sink faces off against disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott (R), the right-wing candidate leads by three, 34% to 31%. * In Pennsylvania, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Rep. Joe Sestak (D) and former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) tied in this year's Senate race, with each garnering 43% support. In April, the same pollster showed Toomey ahead by eight. * While one recent poll showed fired HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R) ahead of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) in the Senate race in California, a new Rasmussen poll shows the incumbent up by seven, 49% to 42%. * Alabama held its GOP gubernatorial runoff yesterday, and as expected, State Rep. Robert Bentley (R) won the party's nod, despite establishment support for former college chancellor Bradley Byrne. * Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) had plenty of credible primary challengers this year, but they're quickly dropping out. The latest is NRA board member Buz Mills, who ended his campaign yesterday. * Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is shedding key staffers without explanation. This week, the chief of staff in her House office and the finance director for her re-election campaign resigned unexpectedly. The deranged lawmaker is nevertheless leading in a recent poll. * And in more Florida news, Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene (D) lost his campaign manager yesterday, when Josh Morrow quit after just two months on the job. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
EXPOSING THE RIGHT'S DEFICIT SHAM.... We talked last week about a trend that's hard to overlook: every time Democrats push legislation that lowers the deficit, Republican lawmakers and their conservative allies oppose it. Given that the right likes to pretend that deficit reduction is a top priority, it seems like there's a disconnect here. This morning, Matt Yglesias goes further, trying to make it painfully obvious that, nonsensical rhetoric notwithstanding, conservatives really don't care about deficit reduction. Here's the easy-to-understand, five-point indictment:
I'm trying to imagine what the conservative response might be to this -- and I'll look forward to seeing what they come up with -- but when looking for any evidence at all that the right is serious about deficit reduction, literally nothing comes to mind. I'd add, by the way, that conservatives really only pretend to care when they're not in power. Before becoming president, Reagan said deficit reduction would a top priority. In office, that commitment was quickly cast aside. Before the 2000 race, Bush said a balanced budget was critically important to him. He then became the single most fiscally irresponsible president in American history. Now that the right is out of power again, they look back with surprise. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently conceded when Republicans controlled the levers of power, "it was standard practice not to pay for things." But if voters give them another chance, this time will be different. Sure. Of course it will -- right after Republicans get those hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich secure for another decade. The key here isn't just to point out GOP hypocrisy and record of abject failure, it's to remind the political world to stop buying into the nonsense. The conventional wisdom still, even now, accepts the notion that conservatives care about deficit reduction. They don't. They care about tax cuts, regardless of the fiscal consequences. Fool me once, shame on you*. Fool me on a nearly daily basis over the course of several decades.... * fixed —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
WHEN RELIGION AND POLITICS COMBINE IN UNHEALTHY WAYS.... Missouri congressional candidate Ed Martin (R) hasn't generated much in the way of national attention this year, but I suspect that's likely to change. Martin, taking on incumbent Rep. Russ Carnahan (D) in Dick Gephardt's old district, appeared on a local radio show this week, and argued that President Obama and Carnahan are trying to "take away" the freedom to be a Christian. As Martin explained it, in his twisted worldview, the "growth of government" leads to the elimination of "all your choices." He added, "One of the choices you take away is to find the Lord -- and find your savior." Americans are therefore losing their "ultimate freedom, to find your salvation, to get your salvation. And to find Christ, for me and you." Martin went on to say that Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), a U.S. Senate candidate and Russ Carnahan's sister, "does the devil's work." Yesterday, Russ Carnahan described Martin's madness as "outrageous," and denounced his right-wing opponent for trying to "use faith to divide rather than unite." Maybe Martin would realize he went too far and start walking his extremism back? Alas, no. Last night, he doubled down.
Factually, this is ridiculous. Politically, I can't help but wonder, where does the Republican Party find these guys? —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
PLAGIARISM PROBLEM INTENSIFIES FOR MCINNIS.... Colorado's gubernatorial race received a jolt yesterday when Scott McInnis, the leading Republican candidate, was found to have received $300,000 to write about state water policy, but in multiple instances, presented someone else's work as his own. Late yesterday, McInnis apologized privately to the original author whose work was taken. Today, it appears McInnis has some more apologizing to do.
There's no real doubt here. In November 1994, Richard V. Allen and Daryl M. Plunk wrote a piece about U.S. policy in the Korean peninsula. Six weeks later, McInnis wrote his own op-ed in a Colorado newspaper that used identical language, and then a month later, used the copied language again in a congressional speech. At no point did McInnis cite or credit the original work. In other words, the controversy isn't over yet. Indeed, in Colorado, the political impact of McInnis' plagiarism is still playing out. State House Speaker Terrance Carroll (D) has called on McInnis, a former Republican congressman, to drop out of the race due to these questions about his "integrity." Dan Maes, a McInnis primary opponent, said the candidate's private apology is "unacceptable," because McInnis "still isn't taking responsibility" for his mistake. Maes added that "this will not blow over." Former Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is piling on, too. Between McInnis in Colorado and Mark Kirk in Illinois, it's not a great year for Republicans seeking statewide office demonstrating honesty and integrity. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC KNOW-NOTHINGISM.... Four months before the midterm elections, "virtually every Republican" in Congress agrees that the country can't afford $30 billion in extended unemployment benefits, but it can afford $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy. Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) apology to BP instantly became a key moment in this cycle, as did Rep. John Boehner's (R-Ohio) dismissal of the importance of the crash of 2008. But this new issue is a development to build an entire campaign around. This week, the Senate Republican leadership made one of the single dumbest policy arguments imaginable: policymakers shouldn't even try to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthy, because they pay for themselves. GOP officials see the overwhelming evidence that Bush's tax policies helped produce a massive deficit, but they reject it, preferring to believe a ridiculous fantasy. As a substantive matter, this is insane. But what about the politics? Ezra Klein had a smart take on this earlier:
Republicans are a creative bunch, especially when it comes to selling garbage, but I'm not sure how even the GOP can spin this: "We really care about the deficit, so we have to reject popular aid to jobless Americans. But we don't really care about the deficit, so we demand massive tax breaks for the wealthy." Even the increasingly-conservative Washington Post editorial board isn't buying the GOP line, calling it "nonsense." Yesterday, in a story about public opinion, the Post noted the concerns of a New Jersey man named Dwight Michael Frazee, who's struggling badly in this economy. He was barely getting by on unemployment benefits, before a Republican filibuster left him with nothing. "My life has been total stress. I sleep maybe four hours a night, worrying about money," he said. "I understood the president and Congress had to stabilize the banks, get Wall Street going. I figured something would be done for middle-class Americans, that they couldn't abandon us. But I was wrong." The story wasn't explicit about Frazee's politics, but the implication was that he blamed Obama and congressional Democrats for failing to help him. It's a reminder of what Dems need to tell voters: Republicans blocked unemployment aid, but keep demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires, regardless of what it does to the deficit. One party wants to fight for those struggling; one wants to, in Frazee's word, "abandon" them. This is the stuff campaigns are made of. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)
WHEN AN ENTIRE POLITICAL PARTY MOVES TO BIZARRO WORLD.... Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) probably didn't realize the impact his remarks would have. The right-wing Arizonan was asked on Fox News how his party would pay for $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, which Republicans are currently demanding. Kyl said what he actually believed: Republicans wouldn't pay for them, and thinks it's a mistake to even try. Spending should be paid for, Kyl said, but tax cuts shouldn't. Kyl later said his bizarre views are endorsed by "most of the people in my party." As Brian Beutler discovered, that's apparently true.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), considered by much of the media as a credible voice on budget issues, is singing from the same ludicrous hymnal. "When you're spending money, you're spending money that is -- it's not the same thing because it's growing the government," he told Brian. "So I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset." Honestly, what's to be done when an entire political party buys a first class ticket to Bizarro World? It's one thing when right-wing blogs and Fox News hosts spout such nonsense, but how does our political system function when "virtually every Republican" believes reckless tax cuts for the wealthy that created huge deficits actually "increased revenue"? How can we have an intelligent conversation with those who use the word "vibrancy" when describing the economy in the Bush years? Republicans aren't just wrong about this; they're pathologically confused. The evidence isn't ambiguous -- Bush's tax cuts led to massive deficits, and if existing policies are left in place, those tax policies will be the single biggest factor in our budget deficits for many years to come. As far as "virtually every Republican" is concerned, the incontrovertible evidence just isn't real. They see reality, but prefer to replace it with a fantasy they find more ideologically pleasing. It makes meaningful, substantive debate quite literally impossible -- there's no foundation of reality to build upon. It's like trying to teach algebra to someone who believes arithmetic is a scam. It's also a reminder that, as conservative as Republicans have been in recent years, they're not done moving off the right-wing cliff. Just a few years ago, the Bush/Cheney Office of Management and Budget and the Bush/Cheney Council of Economic Advisers fundamentally rejected the notion that tax cuts can pay for themselves. Now, "virtually every Republican" accepts as gospel an argument even Bush's economists found to be devoid of any policy seriousness. Paul Krugman laments the Republicans' "invincible ignorance." That's as good a label as any. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)
STOP GATHERING YOUR ARMIES.... GOP primary runoffs in Alabama don't usually generate national attention, but we don't often see unhinged, borderline delusional, congressional candidates like Rick Barber. Would his extremism, oblique references to violence, and enthusiastic support from the Tea Party "movement" propel him to Washington? Not so much.
Barber first came to national prominence with the release of a bizarre video in which the agitated conservative had an imaginary "conversation" with some Founding Fathers, suggested that the president should be impeached, and came pretty close to calling for a violent uprising against the United States government. The ad included an actor playing George Washington concluding, "Gather your armies. Two weeks ago, he released a sequel -- a "conversation" with Abraham Lincoln that equated American tax policies with "slavery" and showed viewers images of Nazi concentration camps. As his notoriety grew, Barber wrote a Washington Post op-ed, insisting that the Obama administration supports "totalitarianism," suggesting that Americans may yet become "slaves" to their government, and warning that we may well be on "the road to serfdom." Tea Partiers loved it. Republican primary voters in Alabama's 2nd didn't. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
July 13, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * A critical moment is just a few hours away: "BP plans to gradually close the outlets in the newly recapped gulf oil well, performing an 'integrity test' that could temporarily halt the flow of the oil for the first time in 85 days, and possibly allow engineers to "shut in" the well permanently." * The number of 99ers -- Americans unemployed for 99 weeks -- stands at 1.4 million. The number has "grown sixfold in the past three years." * Earth's hottest January-to-June on record. If only 60 senators cared. * On a related note, expect a Senate debate on a still-unseen energy/climate bill in two weeks. * If confirmed, Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew will replace Peter Orszag as the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Lew's qualifications aren't in doubt -- he held the exact same job in the Clinton administration. * Federal officials have long considered Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) sand berm proposal to be pretty dumb. They were right, and as is often the case, Jindal was wrong. * Some welcome economic news: better-than-expected profits from Alcoa, CSX, and Intel. * Post-Katrina shootings: "Six current and former police officers were charged in connection with shootings on the Danziger Bridge in the days after Hurricane Katrina that left two dead and four wounded, federal law enforcement officials announced here on Tuesday." * Indefinite detention and the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani: "A federal judge has rejected a claim by a terrorist defendant in Manhattan that his nearly five years of detention by the American government before being transferred into the civilian court system violated his Constitutional right to a speedy trial." * Senate Republicans have found the one thing they're good at: forcing needless delays. "Elena Kagan will have to wait one more week to find out if the Senate Judiciary Committee will recommend her to the full Senate for confirmation to the Supreme Court." * Speaking of the Senate GOP, the votes are there to end the chamber's practice of secret holds, but Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) won't allow the measure to reach the floor. * The closer one looks at Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) economic ideas, the more incoherent they appear. * Inexcusable: "Deadly yet easily preventable bloodstream infections continue to plague American hospitals because facility administrators fail to commit resources and attention to the problem, according to a survey of medical professionals released Monday." * Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) comes up with some very odd conspiracy theories. * Questioning the conventional wisdom that says the United States does not send enough of its young people to college. * Regular Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers talked to host/activist/propagandist Megyn Kelly about the absurd "controversy" surrounding the New Black Panther Party. Powers is conservative, but dismisses this as nonsense. This led Kelly to freak out a bit, and threaten to cut Powers' microphone. Let this be a lesson for on-air contributors: Fox News exists for the dissemination of the agreed upon message/narrative -- and nothing else. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
SCOTT MCINNIS' LUCRATIVE PLAGIARISM.... In general, when politicians stand accused of plagiarism, it's because a candidate lifted lines from a speech, or perhaps copy and pasted text for a website issues page. Former Rep. Scott McInnis (R), the leading Republican gubernatorial candidate in Colorado this year, is taking political plagiarism to a whole new level.
Talk about wingnut welfare. The year after McInnis left Congress, he worked out a deal in which he was paid $300,000 to write a total of 150 pages -- that's an astounding $2,000 a page -- about state water policy. Some of those pages, however, were "nearly reprinted verbatim" from someone else's work. The Denver Post's report added that none of McInnis' work included footnotes, endnotes, or any other forms of attribution. McInnis blamed an aide for the incident, but that doesn't necessarily help. For one thing, the conservative Republican specifically assured the Hasan Family Foundation, in writing, that all of his work was "original and not reprinted from any other source." That clearly wasn't true, and if he couldn't back that up, McInnis shouldn't have made the claim. What's more, it appears that when McInnis agreed to the $300,000 fellowship with the foundation, it was under the impression that the former congressman would work full time on its project. Instead, McInnis agreed to do the work, and then soon after also agreed to begin work at a high-powered law firm. The foundation was "deeply disappointed by the quantity and quality of McInnis' work" -- and that was before it learned that he stole content that wasn't his. The foundation, not surprisingly, would like its $300,000 back. As of this afternoon, McInnis offered a private apology to the writer whose work was lifted, but not to the foundation which paid him all of that money. The AP reported that McInnis does not plan to apologize to anyone publicly. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
ANGLE SAYS CONSERVATIVE SENATOR 'OUTLIVED HIS USEFULNESS'.... Late last week, the suddenly-liberated Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) talked to the AP about the midterm elections, and predicted that "with Sharron Angle" running as the Republican nominee "there's no way Harry Reid loses in Nevada." Bennett was also critical of the right-wing Tea Party "movement" in general, complaining that "these days there are too many people willing to give up on America from the right." Last night, the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada responded during a Fox News interview. Greg Sargent flagged the over-the-top rhetoric:
How bizarre. If hysterical conservative activists disagree with a conservative senator's willingness to talk to Democrats, he's "outlived his usefulness"? Only rabid Tea Party extremists are "mainstream"? Angle seems to be getting stranger by the day. And as long as we're on the subject, I neglected to mention Angle's ridiculous remarks this week about a key local issue in Nevada. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intervened recently to save tens of thousands of jobs in his state, helping secure loans for the MGM Resorts' City Center complex. Angle recently conceded, had she been Nevada's senator at the time, she wouldn't have bothered to intervene, and those tens of thousands of jobs would have been lost. Asked to clarify, Angle later said she wouldn't have helped the City Center complex because she opposed last year's stimulus package. But in reality, the stimulus had nothing to do with the City Center complex -- Reid showed leadership to save the project, but didn't use public funds -- and Angle's remarks made absolutely no sense. When a local reporter tried to get clarification and ask Angle what she was talking about, she said journalists are not allowed to ask the Senate candidate follow-up questions. So, to review, Angle holds radical, extremist views. She's proven to be an awful state lawmaker. She's uninformed about key local issues, and won't answer reporters' questions. I know Sue Lowden had the "chicken for checkups" problem, but there have to be some Nevada Republicans with some severe buyer's remorse right now. —Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
A BIG FREAKING DEAL FOR THE INDECENCY RULE.... During the Bush era, the Federal Communications Commission became increasingly aggressive in cracking down on television broadcasters on "indecent" content. In 2004, after the Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction," the Republican Congress empowered the FCC to levy massive fines against stations for individual "indecent" incidents. Broadcasters pushed back, and took the FCC to court. This afternoon, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals told the networks exactly what they wanted to hear.
"By prohibiting all `patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what `patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive," the appeals court concluded. The ruling added, "To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment." The entire ruling is online here. —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
FIORINA AND THE TAX FAIRY.... I'm beginning to better understand why, after a scandal-plagued tenure, HP fired its beleaguered CEO, Carly Fiorina. Fiorina, who decided to parlay her professional failures into becoming the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in California, talked to a the CBS affiliate in San Francisco this week about her approach to tax cuts.
This is, in most respects, even more ridiculous than Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) assertion that shouldn't try to pay for tax cuts. For the Senate Minority Whip, tax cuts are always good, even if they increase the deficit, because they shrink government. For the deeply confused Carly Fiorina, the policy is more fantastical -- paying for tax cuts is unnecessary because once taxes are cut, more money simply materializes, magically, in the federal treasury. The deficit simply won't go up, she argues, no matter how much taxes are cut. Thirty years ago, this raving stupidity had a name: "voodoo economics." More recently, it's come to be known as belief in the "Tax Fairy." Regardless of the name, the notion that tax cuts necessarily pay for themselves is one of the more pernicious lies in the far-right arsenal. It's both gibberish and right-wing propaganda, but it's nevertheless repeated from time to time. It shouldn't be -- the concept has been debunked repeatedly by those who care about reality. How wrong is the argument? The Bush/Cheney Office of Management and Budget and the Bush/Cheney Council of Economic Advisers rejected the notion that tax cuts can pay for themselves out of hand. Fiorina, in other words, is promising to be even more fiscally irresponsible than the bunch that added $5 trillion to our national debt in eight years. Even a fired CEO should be able to understand the reality here. The single biggest cause of the current deficit is Bush's tax cuts. They didn't "pay for themselves"; they put us in a devastating hole. In the same interview, by the way, Carly Fiorina said the Senate "doesn't have enough people who understand how the economy works." She didn't appear to be kidding, but coming from her, it was laughable. —Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
WHEN CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE THEIR OWN (MISGUIDED) HYPE.... Democrats tend to needle Republicans with a fairly important detail: the GOP doesn't have a policy agenda. It wants power largely to prevent Democrats from acting on their policy agenda, but when it comes to substance and crafting a coherent policy vision, the GOP comes up empty. As Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) recently conceded, he finds "plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas." Jonah Goldberg thinks the "party of no" strategy has been a great success for Republicans, but suggests it's time for the GOP to "call Obama's bluff and offer a real choice."
Kevin Drum seems ready to leap through his computer monitor.
It's hard to overstate how right Kevin is. Congressional Republicans refuse to put forward a substantive policy agenda, not because they're just too darn busy, but because they know it's very likely voters would absolutely hate it. In particular, Ryan's "road map" -- eliminate Medicare, privatize Social Security, huge tax cuts -- was so transparently ridiculous that the House GOP leadership went out of its way to not endorse it. But this goes well beyond Ryan's plan. Note that would-be Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sat down with the Washington Post recently, and refused to give any details about how Republicans would govern. It's not a mystery why -- he lacks Goldberg's confidence in the popularity of right-wing proposals. During the debate over health care reform, House Republicans swore for months that their alternative package was on the verge of being released. GOP leaders delayed it until the last possible moment, and prayed no one paid attention to it, because it was truly laughable. Or how about last year's Republican budget proposal -- which managed not to include any actual numbers? Goldberg wants Republicans to "offer a real choice" to voters? That's a fine idea for a party with a) a coherent vision; and b) the courage of its convictions. There's no reason to think the Republican Party has either. That said, Goldberg does raise one fair point: if Republicans run and win without presenting an alternative agenda, they'll have no mandate if they're successful at the ballot box. The vote in November will reflect disappointment with the status quo, but it won't be an endorsement of the GOP's ideas. If Republicans want a mandate, they'll have to present a meaningful, detailed agenda to the public for scrutiny. If they do, I'll match whatever Kevin's willing to pay. —Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
CONSERVATIVES ARE COMING FOR YOUR BIRTH CONTROL.... During the prolonged debate over health care reform, the most prominent "culture war" fight was over abortion, and whether the new law would allow indirect, circuitous public funding of it. The issue of contraceptives -- specifically, legally mandated coverage of contraceptives in American health care plans -- didn't generate much attention. Dana Goldstein has a fascinating report today about how that's likely to soon change.
At issue are yet-to-be-written federal regulations on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Proponents of women's health want changes to preventive-health-care guidelines to be made quickly, while the right gets organized to fight coverage of birth control. Matt Yglesias sees a fight worth having.
It's tough to predict what folks will care about, but this dispute offers clear upsides for the left. After all, family-planning programs are wildly popular, and contraceptives are commonly used nationwide. Goldstein also noted the business community is supportive: "A new report from the National Business Group on Health found that most companies would save money in the long run by providing their employees with co-pay-free birth control." Here's hoping Obama administration officials ignore conservatives and pursue guidelines that are good politics and good policy. —Steve Benen 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
VITTER ENDORSES FRIVOLOUS 'BIRTHER' LAWSUITS.... I know the scandal-plagued senator is facing a credible primary challenge, which no doubt pushes him even further to the right, but does Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) really have to go this far? Apparently so.
Well, sure, of course they have. But an apparent supporter nevertheless asked Vitter at the event what the senator would do about the president's birth certificate -- and the assembled crowd thought that was a great question. Perhaps motivated by the audience's response, Vitter endorsed birthers' lawsuits. While the far-right senator conceded he wouldn't have legal standing to file the suit, and doesn't want to "focus on that issue," Vitter nevertheless explained, "But I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court. I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it." I don't really expect Vitter to chastise supporters who ask stupid questions at town hall-style events, but for a sitting senator to publicly endorse birther litigation is pretty crazy. Given Vitter's background -- the guy did get caught in a prostitution scandal after running on a "family values" platform -- it's wise to keep expectations low. But even he should know better than this. —Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
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. * The new schedule out of West Virginia says that Gov. Joe Manchin (D) will fill the late Sen. Robert Byrd's (D) vacancy by Sunday. If he or she is sworn in on Monday, the Senate Democratic caucus will be back to 59 votes for the rest of this Congress. * Former Rep. Scott McInnis (R), the leading Republican gubernatorial candidate in Colorado this year, now has a plagiarism controversy to overcome. * Retired judge Chet Traylor (R) conceded yesterday that he's taking on Sen. David Vitter (R) in Louisiana's Republican Senate primary in part because of the senator's Brent Furer scandal. "That was a concern for a lot of people," Traylor said, referring to Republicans who encouraged him to run. "And certainly to women. I don't believe you put someone in charge of women's affairs who's had the kind of problems he's got." * Alabama will hold primary runoffs today. The two races to keep an eye on are the Republicans' gubernatorial race and GOP's runoff in the 2nd congressional district. * In Pennsylvania, a new Quinnipiac poll shows state Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) leading Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato (D), 44% to 37%. * In Maryland, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows a very close gubernatorial rematch, with incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) leading former Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) by just two, 45% to 42%. * It seems hard to believe given Carly Fiorina's (R) history of humiliating failures, but a new SurveyUSA poll shows the fired HP CEO leading incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) in California's U.S. Senate race, 47% to 45% * And speaking of California, the same SUSA poll shows Meg Whitman (R) leading Jerry Brown (D) by seven in the gubernatorial race, 46% to 39%. * In Pennsylvania, Senate hopeful Joe Sestak (D) is now facing an attack from neocons for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. The attack is sponsored by a far-right group led in part by Bill Kristol. * And in a move that will likely lead to several dozen additional Sunday show appearances, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) insists he's "never been this serious" about running for president. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
DEFICIT-REDUCTION MANIA HAS NOT SWEPT THE PUBLIC.... Democrats will very likely feel pretty discouraged about the new Washington Post/ABC News poll -- the news for the party is hardly encouraging. There were, however, a few tidbits for the political world to keep in mind. In terms of the top-line results, Republicans will likely be delighted -- President Obama's approval rating is down; the public is deeply unhappy about the state of the economy; and Republicans enjoy a one-point edge in the generic congressional ballot, after Democrats led in each of the last four months. Among voters most likely to show up on Election Day, the GOP's margin is much larger. There were a couple of trends that jumped out at me, though, beyond the obvious numbers. The first is that the public, while discouraged and pessimistic about the status quo, still doesn't much care for Republicans. Respondents were asked, for example, how much confidence they have in various leaders to "make the right decisions for the country's future." For Obama, the number is 43%. For congressional Democrats, it's 32%. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, is a distant third at 26%. Indeed, while support for Obama's handling on the economy has fallen quite a bit, the poll asked which political party voters "trust to do a better job handling the economy." Democrats still lead Republicans by eight points. Dems aren't faring well in this political landscape, but it's not because voters are moving in large numbers to the GOP. Arguably more important were questions about public attitudes on economic policy. The conventional wisdom suggests the public wants to curtail spending and is sympathetic to the right's arguments on prioritizing deficit reduction. The data is hardly one sided.
I don't love the wording of the question, since it seems to favor a conservative perspective -- the phrasing neglects to mention that more public spending can in turn boost private sector hiring. Nevertheless, the public was split -- 48% to 48%. For lawmakers convinced there's a "backlash" against spending, results like these should matter. There was also this:
It wasn't even close -- 62% want to extend unemployment benefits, 36% are more concerned with the deficit. For those who blocked the Senate from voting on this -- three times in three weeks -- the argument was that Americans, overcome with deficit-reduction mania, want Congress to stop spending. The evidence to the contrary is pretty clear. Over to you, Ben Nelson. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
DRILLING IN LAKE MICHIGAN FOR OIL.... If one were to categorize degrees of extremism in statewide candidates this year, it's probably fair to characterize Nevada's Sharron Angle and Kentucky's Rand Paul as the most radical. The second tier, though, includes some real doozies, including Colorado's Ken Buck, Florida's Marco Rubio, and Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey. By any reasonable measure, Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, Sen. Russ Feingold's (D) Republican opponent, belongs in the same group. Today, Feingold is launching an ad that tells voters, "I said no to drilling in our Great Lakes, but one opponent, Ron Johnson, disagrees. He's willing to hand over the Great Lakes to the oil companies -- threatening Wisconsin's economy, and a way of life for generations of Wisconsin families. We won't let that happen." At first blush, this seems implausible. Ron Johnson has repeatedly sided with oil companies since launching his Senate campaign, but would he really consider drilling in the Great Lakes? Actually, yes, and the closer one looks at this, the uglier the story gets.
According to Johnson's financial disclosure reports, the far-right candidate owns as much as $466,000 in oil company stocks, including as much as $315,000 in BP alone. Johnson hasn't mentioned he has a considerable financial stake in BP's future while he's run around Wisconsin defending BP and the oil industry, and suggesting these same companies get drilling rights to the Great Lakes. Polls suggest Feingold is vulnerable this year, but Johnson's extremism may yet prove to be a tough sell in a traditionally Democratic state. The image of a Deepwater Horizon rig in Lake Michigan may be hard for mainstream voters to shake. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
CHUTZPAH WATCH.... Of all the misguided critics of last year's Recovery Act, arguably none has been quite as aggressive as House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va). As it turns out, of those same critics, arguably none has been exposed as being a bigger hypocrite than Cantor, either. Today, for example, the frequently-confused Virginian will host yet another job fair made possible by the Recovery Act that Cantor claims to hate. It's the third time the Minority Whip has pulled this identical stunt, proving that he's either unaware of the hypocrisy or just too shameless to care. Lee Fang explained:
Remember, Cantor has pulled the exact same stunt before -- hosting a jobs fair with positions made possible, at least in part, by the same stimulus Cantor insists was a mistake. Indeed, there's a clear pattern here. In April 2009, Cantor heralded a high-speed rail project in his district, made possible by the stimulus package. Just two months prior, Cantor fought tooth and nail to prevent that project from existing, and specifically mocked government funding on high-speed rail. If Cantor were the only hypocrite in his caucus, the larger phenomenon wouldn't be nearly as offensive. But at last count, 128 House Republicans -- nearly three-quarters of the total -- have tried to claim credit for creating jobs through a Recovery Act that they fought to kill, and continue to disparage. While GOP leaders in Congress no doubt hope you'll forget, dozens of congressional Republicans have admitted, in writing, that they believe the stimulus and federal spending is good for the economy and an effective way to create jobs. If these Republicans were willing to apologize for the mistake -- or better yet, thank President Obama and congressional Democrats -- I'm sure the majority would be gracious about the whole thing. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
AIMING LOW ON ENERGY/CLIMATE.... With time running out, the chances of passing a comprehensive energy/climate bill this year have all but disappeared. The odds were long before, but after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) walked away from the legislation he helped write, this rare opportunity to pass landmark legislation seems to have slipped away. Barring an unexpected miracle, the question now becomes whether anything can be done on this issue. There are still hopes that an energy bill can pass the Senate this year -- but it'll aim low.
The "utilities only" approach to carbon emissions started catching on as a possible compromise about a month ago, though several Republicans have said any attempts to limit carbon emissions by any amount, at any time, in any sector of the economy, will necessarily draw GOP opposition. And while the "utilities only" compromise would be a modest step in the right direction when we need a significant one, Andrew Restuccia reports we may not even see this scaled-back measure make the final bill.
I know I've emphasized this several times, but it's important to remember that this effort is probably the last chance policymakers will have to combat global warming in many years. With Republicans expected to make significant gains in November, the earliest a meaningful climate bill could be considered would be 2013, and perhaps not even then. The climate crisis, in the meantime, grows more serious -- and has no regard for political misjudgments. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
JON KYL DOUBLES DOWN.... Over the weekend, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was asked on Fox News how he'd pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, at a cost of $678 billion. After initially dodging the question, Kyl said what he really believed: "You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." It was a classic concession. For all the talk about how desperate Republicans are to lower the deficit, Kyl stated what is clearly true: the GOP doesn't even want to try to pay for tax cuts. This, of course, from the party that won't even allow a vote on extended unemployment benefits because of alleged deficit concerns -- and from the party that made the deficit so high in the first place. Brian Beutler caught up with Kyl yesterday to explore this in more detail.
When reminded of overwhelming evidence that unemployment benefits are a very effective stimulus, Kyl said he didn't care about the economic studies. Aid for the jobless, he said, is "a necessary evil" that's "a bad thing for the economy" when the costs are added to the deficit. There are a few angles to consider here. The first is that anyone who thinks $30 billion added to the deficit is "a bad thing for the economy," but $678 billion in tax cuts added to the deficit is fine, shouldn't be taken seriously. Second, Kyl's argument is effectively a philosophical one -- government is bad, tax cuts shrink government, ergo tax cuts must be good under any and all circumstances. There's no intellectual integrity to any of this, but it's nevertheless the driving force behind the Republican approach to governing. Third, unemployment benefits aren't a "necessary evil." As Annie Lowrey explained, "Unemployment insurance ... is a federal insurance program, which helps guarantee that working Americans maintain a decent quality of life for themselves and their families during spells of joblessness. Virtually all Republicans support having an unemployment insurance system." Well, at least they used to. Finally, I think there's an easy way to consider the bigger picture here. The question for policymakers from both parties is almost always the same: can we afford it? Kyl sees $30 billion in benefits for the unemployed and says, "No, we can't afford it." He sees $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy and says, "Yes, we can afford it." It's roughly the equivalent of a family going into Costco, and a parent insisting that they don't have the money for produce, but they do have the money for the giant, flat-screen television. Kyl not only thinks this makes perfect sense, he expects voters to reward his political party for thinking this way. And if the polls are any indication, Kyl may very well be right. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)
WALL STREET REFORM: ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK?.... As of late yesterday afternoon, the pieces appeared to be in place to finally complete work on Wall Street reform. The majority had 57 Democratic votes -- the entire caucus, sans Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) -- and needed three Republicans. Maine's Susan Collins endorsed the bill last week; Massachusetts' Scott Brown agreed yesterday morning; and Maine's Olympia Snowe announced her support late in the day. It seemed 60 votes were in place. Indeed, soon after Snowe issued her statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced, "We will finish our work on this bill this week to ensure that these critical protections and accountability for Wall Street are in place as soon as possible." It seemed a Thursday floor vote was likely. But as we've learned, nothing is ever easy in the Senate.
Specifically, Nelson said late yesterday, "You don't know who's going to be head of the consumer protection bureau. You can't just send a rogue agency out on its own." The comments were a reminder that of why Nelson is so often a confounding disappointment. The provisions related to the consumer protection agency have been debated for months. He waited until the week of the vote, after 60 votes were in place, to start making threats? After he already voted for the same provisions a month ago? It's very likely this is yet another attempt for the conservative Nebraskan to gain leverage over his colleagues. Here's an idea: maybe Ben Nelson should hold the bill hostage until he works out a secret deal behind closed doors that gives him unique influence over the process. That worked out for him so well the last time he tried such a stunt. Roll Call reported this morning that Democratic leadership aides are "confident they can persuade Nelson to vote for the measure and deliver on Reid's vow to finish the bill this week." If Nelson betrays the party again, the leadership will either a) find another Republican supporter, which seems highly unlikely; or b) wait until next week, when the late Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-W.Va.) temporary replacement is expected to be in place. Update: As of late this morning, it looks like Nelson will vote for Wall Street reform. Barring any 11th-hour surprises, the legislation should pass this week, and Reid will start the clock today. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
July 12, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Getting closer, we hope, to containment: "Deep-sea robots swarmed around BP's ruptured oil well Monday in a delicately choreographed effort to attach a tighter-fitting cap that could finally stop crude from gushing into the Gulf of Mexico nearly three months into the crisis." * Afghanistan: "Six U.S. service members died in separate attacks in Afghanistan on Saturday, another round of killings in what is shaping up to be the most violent summer of the nearly nine-year war." * Uganda: "Simultaneous explosions tore through crowds watching the World Cup final at a rugby club and a restaurant in Uganda's capital, killing at least 64 people including one American, officials said. Police feared an al-Qaida-linked Somali militant group was behind the attacks." A Somali militant group linked to al Qaeda later claimed responsibility. * The first one failed in the courts, so the administration is trying another one: "The U.S. Interior Department said Monday it is issuing a new moratorium order in a second effort to block deepwater oil and natural gas projects." * A pretty devastating account: "In BP's Record, a History of Boldness and Costly Blunders." * Gen. David Petraeus wants to enlist Afghan villagers in the fight against the Taliban. President Hamid Karzai isn't exactly on board with the plan. * Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) intends to move forward with a committee vote on New START before the August recess. Jacob Heilbrunn argues that it deserves to be ratified. * "One Nation" poised to proceed: "In an effort to replicate the tea party's success, 170 liberal and civil rights groups are forming a coalition that they hope will match the movement's political energy and influence. They promise to 'counter the tea party narrative' and help the progressive movement find its voice again after 18 months of foundering." * For those who value ethnic, racial, and gender diversity in the federal judiciary, President Obama's record is second to none. * The NAACP may vote as early as tomorrow on a resolution condemning racism within the Tea Party "movement." * Considering the effects of funding shortfalls at the nation's public universities. * For all the complaints, the U.S. Postal Service is run pretty darn well. * Good piece on sea otters, global warming, and carbon trading. * 100 years later, Mark Twain's autobiography, as dictated to a stenographer: "[I]n his unexpurgated autobiography, whose first volume is about to be published a century after his death, a very different Twain emerges, more pointedly political and willing to play the role of the angry prophet." Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
AND THEN THERE WERE 59.... Senate Republicans still hope to kill the pending Wall Street reform package, demanding that that the majority come up with 60 supporters before the Senate is even allowed to vote. At this point, Democrats are very close. There are, at present, 58 members of the Democratic caucus. One, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, has vowed to vote with Republicans on final passage and to support the GOP filibuster, leaving the majority with 57 votes for the financial regulatory reform bill. Going into today, #58 is Maine's Susan Collins (R), who endorsed the legislation last week, and #59 was announced today.
Well, probably. The question will likely come down to timing. Dems need one more vote, and it's almost certainly going to come from one of three people. The easiest route would be support from Maine's Olympia Snowe (R), who already voted for the bill once, but who continues to say she's undecided, though it's unclear why. There's also a possibility that Iowa's Chuck Grassley (R) will help break his party's filibuster -- he also voted for the bill in June -- but he seems to be moving in the opposite direction. If both Snowe and Grassley balk, the Senate will have to delay consideration until West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) appoints a temporary replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D). Of course, Republicans could just let the Senate vote on the bill -- in other words, let the chamber operate the way it was designed to operate, and the way it functioned for the best part of two centuries -- but that's not going to happen. If Snowe and/or Grassley announce their support, expect passage by the end of the week. If both support the filibuster, expect passage by the end of the month. —Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
THIS WON'T HELP RASMUSSEN'S REPUTATION.... If you follow political pollsters, you're no doubt familiar with concerns about Rasmussen. The pollster's results seem to generate results that Fox News just loves (i.e., the kind that tell Republicans what they want to hear). As has been documented by Nate Silver, among others, there's reason for skepticism when it comes to Rasmussen. And as Salon's Justin Elliott notes today, there are also new reasons to question the pollster's political leanings.
Rasmussen's compensation for the appearance is the free cruise itself for him and his wife. Given concerns about the pollster's Republican-friendly results, it's safe to assume Rasmussen appearing on a cruise alongside right-wing celebrities to help National Review make money will not quiet fears that the pollster is far from independent. —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME DEBATE AGAIN?.... I assumed incorrectly that the conservative drive to privatize Social Security would go away for a long while. We had a nice, big debate over this in 2005, and the right lost. Indeed, conservatives didn't just lose; they failed spectacularly. Americans hated the idea; the effort started George W. Bush's presidency into a decline from which it would not recover; and the entire debate was a reminder that there is no Social Security crisis, and Americans are not willing to do away with an effective status quo. And yet, just five years later, the appetite on the far-right for Social Security privatization seems to have increased. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, released a budget blueprint that called for the privatization of Social Security. In Kentucky, Senate candidate Rand Paul (R) wants the same thing. In Nevada, Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) wants to "phase out" Social Security altogether, replacing it with "personalized" accounts that would replace the current system. Now, a certain former half-term governor is on board with the same right-wing plan.
Obviously, fact-checking Palin is a fool's errand, though I should note for anyone who's forgotten that Social Security isn't going bankrupt. I'm also curious to hear some of these far-right policy visionaries do what Bush couldn't -- explain how this new system would work. If younger workers take their money out of the Social Security system -- and it's a pay-as-you-go system, in which younger workers pay the money that's used for benefits older retirees -- where will the money come from to "pay the promised benefits to older workers"? But putting all of that aside, it's the politics of this that really impresses. Social Security is arguably the most popular and successful domestic policy program of the last century, and a growing number of high-profile Republicans -- shortly before a major election, no less -- are boasting of their desire to destroy it. If Democrats fail to take advantage of this, they're missing a huge opportunity. —Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN.... Thanks to the way Republican lawmakers shaped the Bush/Cheney tax cuts, some cuts are due to expire at the end of the year. GOP lawmakers, not surprisingly, want Democrats to extend the cuts.
How does Gregg propose the government pay for those tax cuts? He doesn't -- the cost would just be added to the deficit, the same way they were added to the deficit when Republicans approved these tax breaks in the first place. Indeed, as far as Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is concerned, lawmakers should "never" even try to pay for tax cuts. Let's be real clear about this. When Democrats propose extending unemployment benefits in the midst of an unemployment crisis, Republicans insist that's out of the question and refuse to allow the Senate to even vote on the idea -- the deficit matters more. When Democrats propose aid to states to prevent hundreds of thousands of additional layoffs, Republicans insist that's out of the question and refuse to allow the Senate to even vote on the idea -- the deficit matters more. But when tax cuts -- the single biggest cause of the current massive deficit -- are on the line, Republicans effectively say, "Screw the deficit. We believe deficit reduction is more important than economic growth, except when we believe the opposite." It would be about this time that the Tea Party crowd, if it had any integrity or intellectual consistency, would pipe up and reject the GOP tax-cut rhetoric, reiterating its commitment to deficit reduction. Anyone prepared to place a wager on this one? Also note, Gregg insists the tax cuts would "stimulate the economy." It's hard to imagine why any conscious person could believe this -- the tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy when they were approved. The tax cuts passed in early 2008 didn't stimulate the economy and prevent a recession, either. The tax cuts in the stimulus package were the least effective measure in the entire recovery effort. What's that line about making the same mistake over and over again, expecting a different result? Postscript: Before publishing this, I see that Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who also claims to take deficit reduction seriously, has endorsed the Republican line on expiring tax cuts for the rich. How would Bayh pay for them? He wouldn't. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Evan. —Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (74)
SLAVES TO THEIR TALKING POINTS.... If I never heard another right-wing politician make ridiculous comparisons to slavery again, that'd be just fine. Republicans relying on Hitler/Nazi comparisons is hard enough to take, but when combined with slavery references, it's all a bit much. A couple of weeks ago, an unhinged congressional candidate in Alabama compared America's existing tax structure to "slavery." Now, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is trying a similar tack.
Even for today's right, this truly is insane. It's also more than a little offensive -- the United States has a scandalous history with slavery, where human beings were legally declared to be property, and bought and sold accordingly. If Bachmann and her hysterical allies want to whine incessantly about Democrats cleaning up the mess Republicans dumped on the country, fine. That's to be expected. But if she and her ilk could avoid the silly victim's complex and stop comparing themselves to people the nation allowed to be treated as chattel, I'd sure appreciate it. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
MAYBE THE BUCK SHOULD STOP SOMEWHERE ELSE.... In Colorado last week, right-wing Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) surprised a few people by taking the high road. Regrettably, the detour to the low road soon followed. At a Buck campaign rally, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), an enthusiastic Buck supporter, lashed out at President Obama, calling him "the greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, [and] everything we believe in." To his credit, Buck distanced himself from Tancredo's nonsense, telling reporters he was "surprised when Tom said that." He added, "I think Tom tends to exaggerate sometimes.... I respect, frankly, President Obama. I disagree with him on a lot of his policies." Good for him. Buck is extremely conservative, but he nevertheless did the right thing by dissociating himself with Tancredo's ridiculous attack. It's no doubt difficult for candidates to offer even mild rebukes of their high-profile backers, so this was a heartening move. If only Buck had the courage to stick with it. Amanda Terkel notes that over the weekend, Buck appeared at far-right gathering and abandoned the pretense of respect.
So much for the high road. It was a reminder, though, of why Buck has proven to be one of the year's more extreme politicians, vying for inclusion in the Sharron Angle/Rand Paul radical contingent. He has after all trashed Social Security, called for the end of the federal student loan program, announced his opposition to church-state separation, proposed eliminating the Departments of Education and Energy, and even supporting "Birther" craziness. And now he thinks liberals are the greatest threat facing the country. I wonder if, after his fleeting bout of civility last week, Buck's supporters took him aside and explained that respectful rhetoric just won't do in modern-day Republican politics. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
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. * West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) won't announce his Senate campaign until after an interim senator is named and after "a special session of the state legislature clarifies the law determining when an election for the seat to replace the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd can be held." As for when Manchin might name a placeholder, that's still unclear, too. * In case you missed it over the weekend, retired Judge Chet Traylor will take on scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter (R) in a Republican primary. * On a related note, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D), Vitter's opponent, is launching robocalls going after the right-wing senator's Brent Furer problem. A woman's voice tells voters, "As you may have seen on the news, even after one of Vitter's staffers was convicted for attacking his girlfriend, stabbing her with a knife and threatening to kill her as he held her captive for an hour and a half, Vitter kept him on the payroll after he was convicted. AND gave him a raise. AND left him in charge of women's issues in the Senate office." * Law-enforcement officials in South Carolina have ended their inquiry into how Senate candidate Alvin Greene (D) could afford the $10,440 filing fee for the Democratic primary. * Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) was facing a primary challenge from state Treasurer Dean Martin, but Martin has ended his campaign and thrown his support to the incumbent. He cited the federal lawsuit against Arizona's anti-immigrant law as part of his rationale. * In Connecticut, gubernatorial hopeful Tom Foley (R) boasts on his website that, during his tenure working with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, it was "routine" for him to be "donning bulletproof vests, dodging rockets and mortars, and avoiding IEDs." Evidence suggests Foley's claims are wild exaggerations. * In Alabama, Robert Bentley remains the frontrunner in the Republican gubernatorial runoff, but incumbent Gov. Bob Riley (R) has thrown his support to former college chancellor Bradley Byrne. The election is tomorrow. * With no opponents, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has decided to shut down his re-election campaign operation. * And on a related note, Democrats also can't seem to find a candidate willing to take on Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) this year. Mark Lakers (D) was running, but he dropped out last week, citing weak fundraising. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
VITTER SCANDAL IGNORED BY CONSERVATIVE WOMEN'S GROUPS.... It's tempting to think the biggest scandal facing Sen. David Vitter (R), the scandal-plagued Louisianan seeking re-election this year, would be the prostitutes he hired after running on a conservative "family values" platform. But the Brent Furer controversy is proving to be every bit as interesting. To briefly recap, Furer is the aide Vitter kept on his taxpayer-financed payroll, despite Furer having held his ex-girlfriend hostage, threatening to kill her, and attacking her with a knife. The right-wing senator knew about this, and not only kept Furer on his staff, but tasked him with helping oversee women's issues for the office. Making matters worse, Vitter seemed to lie about this last week. Women's groups and anti-domestic violence activists aren't pleased with the developments.
But what about conservative women's groups? As organizations committed to gender equality grew in strength and influence years ago, conservatives pushed back with right-wing groups and leaders like Concerned Women for America and Phyllis Schlafly. It led Brian Beutler to raise a very good question: what do they think about Vitter paying an aide who violently attacked his girlfriend to oversee women's issues?
It's almost as if right-wing women's groups are primarily concerned with partisan politics above all else. This is the kind of thing that would damage the credibility of an organization -- if these groups had any real credibility in the first place. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
KYL DROPS THE PRETENSE OF SERIOUSNESS.... Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) spoke to Fox News' Chris Wallace yesterday, and spoke with unexpected candor about the foolishness of his fiscal attitudes. Wallace, to his credit, raised a good point -- the "Republican growth agenda" is predicated on keeping "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy." Wallace said this would cost $678 billion over 10 years, and asked Kyl how the GOP would pay for them. Kyl dodged the question, and talked about how great those tax cuts were. So, Wallace asked again how the cuts would be paid for. Kyl responded, "You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." At that point, the discussion moved on, and there was no follow-up. To my mind, Kyl's remarks were every bit as ridiculous as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) comparing the financial crisis to "an ant," or Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) apologizing to BP. Kyl's entire defense was sheer nonsense. Bush's tax cuts, which failed miserably in their stated goal of producing robust economic growth, also failed to keep the balanced budget Clinton left gift-wrapped on Bush's desk. Kyl insists we should keep the failed policy in place, which in and of itself is a reminder of how truly bizarre the Republican approach to the economy really is. But for all the talk about how desperate Republicans are to lower the deficit, when asked how the GOP would pay for $678 billion in tax cuts, Kyl said what he actually believed: he wouldn't pay for them at all. Spending requires budget offsets, tax cuts don't. Indeed, in Kyl's confused mind, one should "never" even try to pay for tax cuts. It's quite a message to Americans: Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don't even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine. The lesson couldn't be any more obvious: the GOP's economic agenda is a pathetic charade. Kyl and his cohorts failed with Bush's tax cuts, failed to prevent massive deficits, and failed when given a chance to set things right. That one of the Senate's most powerful Republicans wants to go right back to the policies that didn't work, and put the tab on future generations, is, as Jay Bookman put it, "both very telling and very worrisome." —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
WHEN EVEN A DISASTER CAN'T SHAKE UP A DISMAL PROCESS.... There's supposed to be a pattern. Policymakers consider action on a large-scale idea, but progress remains slow and the public remains unengaged. Then, a relevant disaster strikes; the public says, "Gee, someone really ought to do something"; and the idea gets new life. It seemed at least possible that we'd see this dynamic play out on energy/climate policy this year. A proposal that's been stuck in a dysfunctional Senate generated renewed attention in the wake of the BP oil spill disaster. But demand for real change has nevertheless failed to materialize -- and this rare opportunity appears likely to slip by.
Perhaps, but at this point, the "choice" seems to favor the broken status quo. The pending energy/climate bill appears to have everything going for it: the proposal would overhaul a broken energy framework, combat global warming, make America more competitive globally, lower the budget deficit, create jobs in a burgeoning industry, and do all of this without significantly raising costs for consumers. And in case the need for a new energy policy wasn't quite clear enough, the Deepwater Horizon disaster seemingly hit the country in the head with an oil-soaked hammer. And yet, nothing. Republicans still won't let the Senate vote on the bill, and the public demand has not changed noticeably. The environmental, ecological, and economic effects of the worst environmental crisis in American history will be severe. The political effects are largely imperceptible. —Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
REPUBLICANS JUST DON'T LIKE THE UNEMPLOYED, CONT'D.... I've been marveling in recent months at the ways in which Republican lawmakers and candidates seem to actively dislike -- on a personal level -- those who've lost their jobs in the recession. It's kind of odd, given that the unemployed don't seem to have done anything to offend the GOP and earn the party's disdain. In the latest example, we see Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (R), the frontrunner in this year's gubernatorial race, arguing publicly that jobless workers in his state are choosing not to work, preferring to live on meager unemployment aid.
I obviously can't speak with confidence about what some guy told some other guy who in turn told Corbett. But the general argument is getting quite tiresome. "The jobs are there"? No, they're really not. Nationwide, there are five applicants for every one opening, which is a terribly painful ratio. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is currently at a 26-year high. Corbett not only seems confused about economic conditions, but his animosity about the jobless' attitudes is awful. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that an unemployed worker who's exhausted his/her benefits will be more desperate to take any job than an unemployed worker who's still receiving public aid. But this dynamic matters a whole lot more when there are plenty of job opportunities for those who want them. That's just not the current reality. To hear Corbett tell it, the unemployed prefer to be unemployed -- turning down job opportunities that pay more, choosing to rely on aid that offers far less. Worse, Corbett doesn't seem to realize that his approach makes the larger problem worse -- cutting people off from unemployment benefits undercuts consumer spending, which in turn leads to less demand and fewer job opportunities. And in the bigger picture, Republicans' efforts to castigate the jobless continue to strike me as bizarre. Sharron Angle, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, considers the unemployed "spoiled ." One GOP congressman recently compared the unemployed to "hobos." In the House, GOP lawmakers tried to eliminate a successful jobs program. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) actually started pushing a measure to require the unemployed to take mandatory drug tests in exchange for benefits. Kentucky's Rand Paul wants the jobless to quit their bellyaching and "get back to work." And, of course, in the Senate, Republicans have refused to allow a vote to extend unemployment benefits, and won't even consider aid to states that would prevent hundreds of thousands of additional layoffs. What did the unemployed ever do to offend the Republican Party this much? —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)
IS THAT A RHETORICAL QUESTION?.... The right's overheated reaction to the so-called "Climategate" story had exactly the desired effect -- major media outlets told the public that emails from Climatic Research Unit scientists put their data in doubt. As the climate crisis intensified, and Democratic policymakers hoped to generate support for a more progressive energy policy, the reports undermined public confidence in the evidence. That was then. In the ensuing months, five independent investigations have scrutinized what transpired, and each concluded that the integrity of the science is entirely sound. The global warming deniers' arguments were debunked. The most recent report, released last week, concluded, "On the specific allegations made against the behavior of CRU scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." Will news outlets report these developments with equal enthusiasm? On CNN yesterday, Howard Kurtz took note of the trend: "The New York Times, to its credit, put this British report on the front page. Most of the major papers I looked at stuck it inside. CNN's 'Situation Room' did a full story on it, but there was not many mentions on cable news, nothing on the broadcast networks." This is, unfortunately, quite common. The right erupts with anger, the media treats the "controversy" as a legitimate story, and the public hears all about it. We eventually learn that the story was nonsense, but at that point, the media has lost all interest. But here's the kicker from Kurtz, noting who ignored the report exonerating the climate scientists: "Glenn Beck didn't report on this at all. Last fall, when the e-mails were leaked, he called global warming a big hoax and he said, 'Why has no network covered this global warming fix?' Why has Glenn Beck and others not revisited it?" Is that a rhetorical question? Beck doesn't revisit stories to let his viewers know the truth -- his job is to enrage his followers, not inform them. The "Climategate" allegations told Beck what he wanted to hear, so they made his broadcast. The five independent investigations told Beck he was wrong, so the truth was ignored. Those waiting for Beck to show intellectual honesty or professional standards will be waiting a very long time. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
July 11, 2010
IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY, STUPID, CONT'D.... The New York Times reported last weekend that there's a divide within the White House when it comes to the economy. Political advisors, including David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, see the polling data and are inclined to respond to public concerns about government spending and deficits. The economic team, including Christina Romer, Jared Bernstein, and Tim Geithner, see the economic data and are inclined to actually try to create more jobs and generate more growth. We were reminded again of this divide today. ABC's Jake Tapper spoke to Axelrod about the economy, and the senior White House advisor took the expected line.
And that was all Axelrod was prepared to endorse -- extended unemployment employments (Axelrod said it's something we "ought" to do, as opposed to "must"), and extended tax cuts for small businesses. Axelrod acknowledged that there's "some argument" for additional short-term stimulus, but it wasn't an argument he was necessarily prepared to endorse. Here's hoping White House officials take a moment to read Atrios.
My sense is that President Obama really hates -- and actively avoids -- picking fights he fully expects to lose. Based on his public comments and proposals, I'd say the president really does endorse his economists' approach and wants additional stimulus, but doesn't want to go the mat to fight for spending he's not going to get. The defeat would leave him weaker, exacerbate intra-party tensions, and at the same time signal that the White House lacks confidence in the strength of the economic recovery. But the current alternative is far worse, especially given the fact that the White House should lack confidence in the strength of the economic recovery. It makes a lot more sense to push an ambitious jobs bill -- like, now -- invite Republicans to do what they always do, give Democrats something to fight for, and have the debate. Of course, the problem isn't exclusive to the White House. Indeed, the problem didn't originate with the White House at all -- Axelrod said frustrating things on "This Week" earlier in large part because there are more than a few hand-wringing Democrats on the Hill afraid to prioritize the economy over the deficit. Here's hoping the entire party, after reading Atrios' post, also takes a look at Ezra Klein's latest piece.
Yes, Republicans will block any measure intended to improve the economy, and it's largely too late for a new stimulus effort to boost the economy before November. But it's still worth having the fight -- force the GOP to stand in the way of job creation, and show the public that Democrats are prepared to fight to improve on an unsatisfactory status quo. —Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (88)
BRODER'S ADVICE FOR THE TEA PARTY CROWD.... The Washington Post's David Broder considers the Tea Partiers in his column today, riffing off the American Enterprise Institute's Henry Olsen's efforts to place it "in the historical context of other populist movements." This strikes me as a very bad idea. For one thing, Tea Partiers aren't really a "movement" -- we're talking about an effort 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 another, Tea Partiers aren't really populists -- they're anti-government zealots, actively hostile to efforts to materially improve the lives of working Americans. But Broder seems to see things a little differently, and endorses the notion that Tea Partiers will have more success if they come across as less extreme.
I suppose so, but isn't that pretty obvious? It's like saying, "Building a balanced budget will require a sensible long-term combination of tax increases, economic growth, and fiscal responsibility." Or maybe, "Building a successful Detroit Lions franchise will require talented players, sensible coaches, and a favorable schedule." As the kids say, "Duh." The trick is figuring out how to make it happen. Would the Tea Party crowd be more popular if they seemed less insane? Well, sure. But we're talking about a confused group of right-wing cranks working off nothing but blind rage. The problem isn't that Broder's advice is wrong; it's that his advice seems oddly out of place. The Tea Party crowd will succeed, he argues, if they appear mainstream, craft a coherent policy agenda, back off their demands to destroy nearly every federal program, and distance themselves from the "kooks." That's fine, as far as it goes, but what about the realization that the Tea Party crowd isn't mainstream, doesn't know enough about government to craft an agenda, wants to destroy the modern welfare state, and includes an overabundance of kooks? —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
AMENDMENT MANIA.... We talked yesterday about far-right Republicans making a transition when it comes to constitutional amendments. Whereas conservatives used to have a wide variety of new amendments they wanted to see added to the Constitution, they're now pushing for the repeal of old amendments they no longer like -- most notably the 14th (on birthright citizenship), the16th (a progressive federal income tax), and the 17th (U.S. senators elected by the public). But when it comes to constitutional tinkering, the Republican Party of Iowa seems to be even more ambitious than most. An alert reader sent me a copy of the state GOP's party platform, which includes some real gems. When it comes to new amendments the Republican Party of Iowa wants to see added, the wish list isn't short -- the party wants a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, an amendment to ban marriage equality, a "parental rights amendment," an amendment to "correct" federal "abuse" of the Commerce Clause, an amendment to require balanced federal budgets, and an amendment to give presidents a line-item veto. That's six new amendments the state party is demanding. But the real fun comes when we see the other constitutional changes the Republican Party of Iowa wants to see. Surprisingly, the state GOP doesn't mention repealing the 16th and 17th. It does, however, have its eyes on two others.
The 13th amendment bans slavery, but the amendment that was going to be the 13th would have stripped Americans of their citizenship if they accepted "any title of nobility or honor" from a foreign country. (Sir Rudy Giuliani, pack your bags.) Why would right-wing Iowans still care about this? I have no idea. The 14th Amendment, another Civil War amendment, does quite a few things, and, the state GOP's platform notwithstanding, has already been legally ratified. Republican Iowans apparently want a "repeal and replace" here, because 19th-century Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard (R) wanted language that excluded "persons born in the United States who are foreigners" from becoming citizens. It's 142 years later, and the Republican Party of Iowa is still on the case. Remember, no matter how nutty the GOP seems in Washington, there's even more nuttiness to be found at the state level. —Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
BAILOUT BOOSTERS BUCKLE UNDER BACKLASH.... In some ways, we're seeing an example of one of the longest delayed reactions in modern politics. Congress and the Bush/Cheney White House approved the Troubled Asset Relief Program in October 2008 -- about a month before a critical Election Day. To be sure, the vote was considered controversial at the time, but there was bipartisan support for the proposal, and there's little evidence that the vote had a significant effect in key races. It appears the statute of limitations hasn't run out. Policymakers who weren't punished for supporting the financial industry bailout before the last election are feeling the heat in advance of this election.
Over the last couple of years, the bailout's public popularity has done nothing but fall -- a sentiment that spans practically every group and demographic -- but the far-right and Tea Party crowd seems especially incensed. This one vote has already played a significant role in a variety of races this year, including Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) losing at his party convention, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) losing in a primary, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) losing in a gubernatorial primary. It's no doubt tempting for lawmakers who voted for TARP to defend their position by defending the policy -- the bailout was effective in preventing a collapse of the financial industry; the program cost far less than expected; and the bailed out institutions are already paying the money back. Unfortunately for those politicians, no one wants to hear a defense of a universally reviled policy. If I were a Republican candidate taking heat for this, I suppose the preferable tack would be to point to those who came to the same conclusion in October 2008 -- the bailout 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); it was enthusiastically endorsed by the Senate Republican leadership (Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl); it was enthusiastically endorsed by the Republican presidential ticket (John McCain and Sarah Palin); and enjoyed the support of assorted, high-profile conservative voices (Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck). For GOP candidates taking heat from the party's right-wing base, it should count for something to say, "I took the same position on this as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck," right? —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
WITH 'CLIMATEGATE' HAVING COME AND GONE.... When global warming deniers latched onto the "Climategate" story, they thought they'd finally come up with a credible basis for their beliefs. The charge was the climate scientists deliberately manipulated their research to reach pre-conceived conclusions. Some of the nuttiest deniers on the right even tried to use the "controversy" to suggest climate change itself is irrelevant and inconsequential. Of course, there have now been five independent investigations of the incident, and all five have found that the deniers' arguments are wrong. The most recent report, released this week, concluded, "On the specific allegations made against the behavior of [Climatic Research Unit] scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." The New York Times editorial board raised a good point today: "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming."
That last point is of particular interest.
Of course, if given a choice between policymakers taking climate change seriously going forward and major U.S. media outlets covering the exoneration of the climate scientists with equal gusto to coverage of the "scandal," I suspect the former is more likely. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
A POTENTIAL TURNING POINT IN THE GULF.... We've reached a point that no doubt seems familiar -- as oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, a new effort is poised to get underway to cap the wellhead and curtail the spill. Previous plans have fallen short, and in some cases, failed altogether. That said, the new effort, already underway this weekend, comes with high expectations and the prospect of a breakthrough. The first steps got underway yesterday afternoon, when the containment cap that's helped capture about half of the gushing oil was removed. The next step is the tricky one, but it offers great promise.
The massive, new containment mechanism is called the "total sealing cap" and would be installed in pieces over the next several days. If the cap fails, the back-up plan is to install an improved version of the old cap, which is standing by, just in case. Indeed, while BP's original engineering plan was deemed inadequate for lack of contingencies, the Obama administration mandated backup plans for the backup plans. If it works, the new effort -- total sealing cap working in conjunction with the Helix Producer I -- the has the capacity to collect 80,000 barrels a day, which is more than triple the best day we've collected lately. If fully functional, it may even collect all of the gushing oil. And what of the temporary increase in oil spilling into the Gulf? "To cope with the oil that leaks into the gulf during the cap-swapping procedure, BP has positioned more than 40 large or midsize skimmers near the well site and has 14 teams ready to conduct controlled burns." In the meantime, one of the two relief wells is closing in on its target, and is now an estimated 70 feet from its goal. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
July 10, 2010
IF ONLY THE RIGHT WOULD LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE.... For the better part of the last couple of decades, conservatives took a fairly aggressive approach to constitutional amendments: they wanted several more. Indeed, by the mid-point of his presidency, George W. Bush was on record supporting at least six different proposed amendments to the Constitution: (1) prohibiting flag burning; (2) victims' rights; (3) banning abortion; (4) requiring a balanced budget; (5) prohibiting same-sex marriage; and (6) allowing state-endorsed prayer in public schools. As a wise blogger noted at the time, Bush "really seems to think the Constitution is just a rough draft." But that was several years ago, and the right's approach has shifted. Conservatives no longer prioritize adding new amendments to the Constitution; they now believe it's time to start repealing some of the old ones. We talked last month about the growing demands among Tea Partiers to repeal the 17th amendment -- the constitutional provision that empowers the electorate to choose their own senators, rather than state legislatures doing it, as the Constitution originally mandated. Zaid Jilani noted one right-wing congressman who agrees, and wants to go even further.
Note, there was no real ambiguity about Broun's intentions. He conceded it would be "a long process," but said he wants both amendments "to be repealed fully." (The 16th amendment, by the way, created a progressive federal income tax. Nevada's Sharron Angle has also called for its repeal.) This is becoming more and more common. On CNN yesterday, Utah's Mike Lee, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate this year, called the 17th Amendment "a mistake," and though he doesn't think repeal is realistic, Lee is on record supporting the idea of repeal. What's more, remember that the right has also targeted the 14th Amendment for its language mandating birthright citizenship for Americans. Some conservatives -- including Republicans Rand Paul (Ky.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), and Louie Gohmert (Texas) -- have suggested an additional amendment to "modify" this language may be necessary. The Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra recently noted, "It is encouraging that so many Americans are now discussing and debating the Constitution. It is, after all, the People's document. But before Tea Party repeal efforts gather steam, 'We the People' should take a sober look at the text, history, and principles behind the amendments the Tea Party would like to do away with. Amending the Constitution is not an easy task, and generations of Americans poured blood, sweat, and treasure into adopting the amendments that Tea Party activists would now like to repeal." If this were limited to right-wing activists, it'd be easier to dismiss. Alas, Republican officeholders and several statewide candidates are echoing the same ridiculous demands. Given the alleged reverence for the Constitution in far-right circles, the irony is rich. —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a breakthrough development in the often-ignored area of houses of worship and loaded firearms.
It's not especially common for houses of worship to operate with armed, state-sanctioned "security forces," but I suppose modern standards are changing. The issue is not unique to Louisiana -- Louisville pastor Ken Pagano of the New Bethel Church invited his congregation to bring their firearms to church last year -- but the Pelican State appears to be the first to tackle the issue with a new statewide law. Also from the God Machine this week: * Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) is still trying to mend fences with the religious right after his recent suggestion that there be a "truce" in the culture wars. This week, however, a radio interview emerged that showed the extent to which Daniels already agrees with the far-right movement on some key issues. Condemning atheism, for example, Daniels said, "[A]theism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -- Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth -- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth." * Where would Jesus drill? "Religious leaders who consider environmental protection a godly mission are making the Gulf of Mexico oil spill a rallying cry, hoping it inspires people of faith to support cleaner energy while changing their personal lives to consume less and contemplate more." Walt Grazer, head of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, told the AP, "This is one of those rare moments when you can really focus people's attention on what's happening to God's creation." * And still more developments in the Roman Catholic Church's scandal involving the sexual abuse of children: "Police are investigating accusations that the former archbishop of Belgium knew of sexual abuse in the church but failed to stop it, the Belgian prosecutor's office told CNN Tuesday. Cardinal Godfried Danneels was archbishop of Belgium for more than 30 years before he stepped down in January." (thanks to reader D.J. for the tip) —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
WHEN POLITICAL GIBBERISH MAKES ITS WAY TO THE OP-ED PAGE.... Rick Barber (R), a delusional congressional candidate in Alabama, has made quite a name for himself recently. Barber first came to national prominence with the release of a bizarre video in which the agitated conservative had an imaginary "conversation" with some Founding Fathers, suggested that the president should be impeached, and came pretty close to calling for a violent uprising against the United States government. Two weeks ago, he released a sequel -- a "conversation" with Abraham Lincoln that equated American tax policies with "slavery" and showed viewers images of Nazi concentration camps. Today, Barber has an op-ed in the Washington Post, defending the "politics of fear," and rationalizing his hatred for America's leadership.
If this were true, it might help shed some light on why right-wing activists like Barber are so hysterical. But here's the thing: these complaints are gibberish. His indictment of the government is based on observations with no foundation in reality. The federal government hasn't "seized control" of the health care industry -- it approved modest reforms of a dysfunctional system, the kind of reforms many Republicans supported up until very recently, while leaving private control intact. The federal government didn't "seize control" of the financial industry -- the Bush administration bailed out the industry to prevent an economic collapse, and Democrats approved some new safeguards to protect consumers, but left private enterprise in private hands. And on and on. The mortgage industry has not been nationalized. The automobile industry was rescued, is paying the taxpayers back, and will return to private control. The government was subsidizing student loans anyway, we just ended needless and expensive taxpayer-financed giveaways to banks. The Internet and the energy sector are no closer to government ownership than they were before. In other words, given a high-profile platform, Rick Barber's case against the Obama administration and congressional Democrats is patently ridiculous for anyone who takes reality seriously. These aren't subjective questions, judgment calls, or matters of opinion -- the observations he states as fact are demonstrably false. Which leads to the obvious questions: why on earth is the Washington Post publishing an op-ed with claims the editors surely know to be wrong? How does it inform the newspaper's readers to present them with delusional assertions with no basis in fact? Barber's hysterical op-ed reads like a confused screed on an obscure right-wing blog. It warns of Obama bringing "totalitarianism," makes obligatory references to Saul Alinsky, suggests that Americans may yet become "slaves" to their government, and warns that we may well be on "the road to serfdom." This is deranged garbage; nothing more. Why it's on the Washington Post's op-ed page is a mystery. —Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
VITTER HAS ONE OF THOSE WEEKS.... It was a week Sen. David Vitter (R), the scandal-plagued Louisianan seeking re-election this year, would likely prefer to forget. Unfortunately, for the right-wing senator, it ended on an especially unpleasant note. On Wednesday, Vitter briefly stopped hiding from the press, fielding a couple of questions in a two-minute media availability. It didn't go well -- journalists pressed the senator on why he kept a violent criminal on the public payroll, and put the man who assaulted his ex-girlfriend in charge of women's issues. On Thursday, evidence emerged that Vitter lied to reporters about the aide the day before. And late yesterday afternoon, the news for Vitter got a little worse.
News of a primary fight isn't exactly new. Indeed, after Vitter was caught committing adultery with prostitutes after having run on a "family values" platform, it was largely assumed that the humiliated senator would struggle. A variety of Louisiana Republicans, including Suzanne Haik Terrell, Tony Perkins, and Secretary of State Jay Dardenne, publicly flirted with a primary challenge, but backed off. Traylor, however, quietly worked to assemble a team -- he has an extensive list of friends within the state GOP establishment, especially deep-pocketed conservative business leaders -- and submitted his paperwork with literally just minutes to go before the filing deadline. Vitter's incumbency and financial advantage positions him as the favorite in the primary, but the contest will force him to spend time and money he hoped to devote to the general election, and will create fissures among in-state Republicans. Indeed, David Kurtz suggests Traylor's candidacy might be evidence that "the business community is abandoning Vitter." A primary race that didn't exist 24 hours ago has instantly become one of the season's most interesting contests. Something to keep an eye on. —Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (3)
RIGHT CONCLUSION, WRONG RATIONALE?.... Late Thursday, Judge Joseph Tauro shook up the debate over gay rights, declaring a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Supporters of equality on the left were thrilled; opponents on the right were not. But it wasn't long before observers took a closer look at the ruling itself. The left loved the outcome, but balked at the implications of the rationale. Many on the right loved the rationale, but resented it being used to further an equality agenda they find offensive.
The article quotes a variety of conflicted far-right activists inclined to cheer a court ruling based on the 10th Amendment and promoting "states' rights," but equally inclined to denounce a court ruling that allows marriage equality. Of course, the flip-side is true, too. Scott Lemieux explained the problem of going after DOMA on 10th Amendment grounds, rather than finding it unconstitutional on equal-protection grounds.
—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
July 9, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * A glimmer of hope: "The federal official leading the Gulf oil spill cleanup said Friday a new containment cap and an additional ship collecting oil could effectively contain the spill in the next three days. The work to replace a leaky containment cap on the well head with a tighter one will begin Saturday, National Incident Commander Thad Allen said Friday. At the same time, a ship connecting to a different part of the leak is expected to come online Sunday." * Pakistan: "A suicide bomber attacked a group of tribal elders gathered near the headquarters of the civilian government in Mohmand on Friday, killing more than 60 people and wounding more than 100, a senior Pakistani security official said." * The swap went off without a hitch: "In a seeming flashback to the cold war, Russian and American officials traded prisoners in the bright sunlight on the tarmac of Vienna's international airport on Friday, bringing to a quick end an episode that had threatened to disrupt relations between the countries." * It's hard to know what the jury in the Oscar Grant case was thinking. * The Fifth Circuit rejected the Obama administration's appeal on a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. * Gen. David Petraeus will consider soldier complaints about the existing restrictions on the rules of engagement. * It's good to see the Obama administration prepare "new rules that will make it substantially easier for veterans who have been found to have post-traumatic stress disorder to receive disability benefits, a change that could affect hundreds of thousands of veterans from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam." VetVoice's Richard Allen Smith has more, including praise for President Obama for having "raised the bar and set a new standard for the way we care for Vets." * The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is on track. * New DNC frame: "BP Republicans." * Remember when the RNC was supposed to be reimbursed for the bondage-themed nightclub expenses? It seems that hasn't quite happened yet. * Will the major media outlets that took the "Climategate" story seriously before be just as diligent now that the "controversy" has been resolved? * The Defense Department's survey on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" leaves much to be desired. * Why anyone would find Arthur Laffer credible is a mystery to me. * New federal rules matter for all colleges. * Good to see the right's bogus Jones Act talking point get some pushback. * Why, oh why, does the Washington Post keep publishing ridiculous columns from Amity Shlaes? * And as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) continues to help demonstrate, "death panel" rhetoric really is back among unhinged conservatives. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
LETTING THE SUNSHINE IN, REDUX.... Just this morning, we talked about next week's "America Speaking Out" meeting between House GOP leaders and lobbyists. The stated purpose is for Republicans to get ideas for the party's policy agenda directly from lobbyists representing massive trade groups, including the GOP-friendly National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which really loves Republicans). While the meeting itself seems problematic -- do GOP leaders have to huddle with lobbyists for every decision? -- the other issue to come up was about transparency. Why should next week's discussion be held behind closed doors? Why not let the public take a peek behind the curtain? Well, whaddaya know.
That's certainly the right call. Had GOP leaders gone ahead with the meeting, and insisted on shielding it from view, it would have reinforced Democratic talking points. Ideally, Republicans wouldn't be shaping their currently-non-existent policy agenda based on lobbyists' suggestions, but if they are, it's preferable to at least be up front about it. GOP leaders don't often respond to criticism like this quickly, but perhaps this was an instance in which they just couldn't explain the need for secrecy. As a practical matter, of course, the result is likely to be largely theatrical. The reason the "secret deals" and "behind closed doors" talking points from the health care debate became so tiresome is that meaningful discussions always occur in private. People are more comfortable being candid and constructive when they know they're not being recorded. As Greg Sargent noted today, just because next week's lobbyist meeting will be live-streamed, "doesn't preclude other private discussions between lawmakers and lobbyists from taking place, and the lobbyists will be a tad more guarded than they otherwise might be." Right. I'm glad the meeting will be streamed, and I give the GOP credit for responding to criticism, but I don't actually expect John Boehner and the USCOC's Bruce Josten to slip and say something controversial next week. That'll come after the cameras are turned off. Still, we'll get to hear exactly what the trade groups' lobbyists want to present in terms of economic ideas, and just how anxious the Republican leadership is to give them what they want. It should be fairly interesting. —Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
EMMER MIGHT NEED A FEW TIPS.... With so many really conservative candidates seeking statewide office this year, it can be challenging keeping up with all of them and their antics. Kentucky's Rand Paul, Nevada's Sharron Angle, Colorado's Ken Buck, Wisconsin's Ron Johnson -- in a normal year, candidates like these would struggle badly to even generate mainstream attention. This year, with an angry electorate and a GOP that's shifted to the hard-right, all of these candidates have a credible shot at success. But let's not overlook Minnesota's Tom Emmer, a state representative who's the presumptive Republican gubernatorial nominee this year. Emmer hasn't garnered quite as much national scrutiny as the Sharron Angles of the world, but there's ample reason to throw his name in the mix when discussing 2010's most extreme candidates. Emmer's newest flap has to do with economic ideas. About a week ago, the Minnesota Republican said he had a great idea to improve the state economy: lower the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, and force them to rely more heavily on tips. As Emmer argued, "some" servers are "earning over $100,000 a year," so lowering their minimum wage wouldn't be a problem if the state credited their tips towards Minnesota's wage requirement. With no evidence of in-state wait-staff taking home six figures, Emmer became the subject of some mockery. He's now starting to walk back his idea.
While this is clearly amusing, and the kind of thing that can really resonate in a campaign (see "chicken for checkups"), it's worth keeping in mind that the limits of Emmer's ideology go well beyond bizarre ideas about servers and tips. Indeed, by some measures, Emmer has the most radical ideas about constitutional law of any gubernatorial challenger running this year. Emmer, who's also a lawyer, believes in a 19th-century-era concept called "nullification." It's kind of like secession-lite -- states can overrule federal law whenever they choose to do so. The concept has been rejected as nonsense since the Civil War, but Emmer has not only endorsed it, he co-sponsored a measure that would presumptively nullify all federal laws in the state of Minnesota.
Emmer even wrote an op-ed a few weeks ago insisting, "As governor, I will push back against this federal encroachment into our local affairs. I believe that our Legislature should have a voice in whether federal laws should be made to apply to Minnesotans." This isn't just a garden-variety bad idea; this is truly crazy. It's the kind of sentiment one might expect from John C. Calhoun in 1833, not a 21st-century major-party gubernatorial candidate. —Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
LOSING THEIR HEADS.... We talked a week ago about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) trying to defend her anti-immigrant policies, prompting her to argue that immigrants entering the U.S. illegally are responsible for "beheadings." All available evidence suggests Brewer just made it up, and her office hasn't been able to substantiate the claim. But Brewer seems to be leading a larger crusade among Arizona Republicans, making it seem as if their state is on the verge of immigrant-based anarchy, overrun with immigrant drug trafficking, kidnappings, and police shootings. The more the rest of the country hears about these nightmare scenarios, the more they're inclined to support measures like the odious Arizona immigration law. Dana Milbank explained today, "Last year gave us death panels and granny killings, but compared with the nonsense justifying the immigration crackdown, the health-care debate was an evening at the Oxford Union Society."
The "beheadings" lie was amusing in its hyperbole, but we're reaching a point at which nearly every claim made by Arizona Republicans and their allies is simply, demonstrably wrong. Violence from Mexican drug cartels is spreading north? There's no evidence of that. Phoenix, according to McCain, is the "No. 2 kidnapping capital of the world"? No, it's not. Most immigrants from Mexico are drug mules? That's wrong, too. Most law-enforcement shootings are at the hands of undocumented immigrants? Total bunk. At this point, I'm hard pressed to find any GOP talking points on immigration policy that aren't made up. We can't even have an honest debate on the issue because one side of the divide is living in fantasy land. As for the real-world effects of rhetoric from Brewer, McCain, and their allies, it seems the only obvious consequence is a drop in the number of people who actually want to visit the state of Arizona. After all, why would tourists want to go to a place its own leaders describe as some kind of lawless, violent dystopia? —Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
CNN WILDLY UNDERESTIMATES REPUBLICANS.... The headline on CNN's political blog is one to remember: "A stimulus program even a Republican can love." Sounds great, right? Republicans absolutely loathe the recovery efforts that prevented an economic catastrophe, but if there's a measure within the stimulus that the GOP can actually love, I'm anxious to hear about it.
So far, so good. When the American Enterprise Institute and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) agree with Democrats about part of the stimulus effort, it's safe to assume it has some real value. Indeed, when one provision in the Recovery Act can boast it alone put more than 200,000 people back to work, it's the kind of thing that should get bipartisan praise. But there are two things the CNN report neglected to mention. The first is the money for the TANF Emergency Fund will run out at the end of September, and probably won't be continued -- regardless of how effective it is -- because Republicans have said the deficit is more important than job creation. The second point is that CNN's report also neglected to mention that, in May, the House Republican leadership targeted the TANF Emergency Fund as a huge waste of money, and said the successful jobs program should be eliminated altogether. Indeed, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) created his "YouCut" gimmick, and scrapping the TANF Emergency Fund was the very first thing Republicans decided to try to cut. After looking over the entire federal budget, House GOP leaders decided this program was the best example of the kind of government spending they're anxious to slash. So, when CNN highlights this as "a stimulus program even a Republican can love," it overlooks the fact that congressional Republicans don't actually love it. On the contrary, congressional Republicans have identified one of the most successful and popular elements of the Recovery Act, and have gone to great lengths to try to eliminate it. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
GOP CLIQUES ALREADY CAUSING SOME TENSIONS.... How certain are House Republicans that they'll reclaim the majority in the next Congress? There's some evidence that they're moving past the "confidence" phase, and have already adopted the "internal factions fight for power" phase. The first real hint of tensions came about a week ago, when a Politico piece noted a disagreement between House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) over the "America Speaking Out" gimmick. Cantor wanted it housed in a campaign committee, so the initiative could be exploited for fundraising and email lists, and Boehner wanted it kept inside the official GOP leadership structure, where it wouldn't face campaign law limitations. A "heated exchange" soon followed, and Cantor is now reportedly ignoring the while "America Speaking Out" project. The tensions seem to be growing -- and expanding.
McCotter, a Boehner ally, wants to eliminate the House GOP's policy committee, which doesn't really do anything anyway, and save $360,000 in taxpayer money. Cantor wants to keep the committee in place, prompting McCotter to go on Fox News and say the Minority Whip is "absolutely mistaken." Taking a shot at one of Cantor's pet gimmicks, the Michigan Republican added, "As for the whip, I would encourage him, especially when he's got his 'YouCut' program up there, to turn it into 'WeCut' first." (ThinkProgress has the video.) It sounds a bit like high school, only with far less adult supervision. I've heard from a couple of Hill staffers this week about the behind-the-scenes "drama," and it seems like a dynamic worth watching. It's not ideological -- all of the players agree on nearly every issue -- but there are personality-driven differences that are exacerbated by the assumption that these guys will be running the House in January. Boehner has his clique, which includes McCotter and NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), while Cantor has his faction, which includes NRCC Recruitment Chair Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). This may prove to be nothing more than pre-election positioning, and the tensions could ease if expected wins materialize in November. Or it could be the start of a meaningful fissure and larger food fight. Stay tuned. —Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw (D) issued a ruling yesterday concluding that the state can hold a special election this year to fill the vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D). It makes a November election far more likely. * Will West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) be the Democrats' Senate candidate? He conceded this morning that it's "highly likely" he'll run this year. * And on a related note, if Manchin does run, he'll likely start as the frontrunner. A Rasmussen poll shows him leading his likely GOP rival, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R), by 14 points, 53% to 39%, * Speaking of Rasmussen, which offers data that should be taken with a grain of salt, the pollster also released results yesterday from Illinois' closely-watched Senate race. While the last poll showed Rep. Mark Kirk (R) with a slight lead, the new poll found state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) with a one-point lead, 40% to 39%. * The Colorado Republican Party held an event yesterday to announce the launch of a new headquarters for its 2010 "Victory program." RNC Chairman Michael Steele was on hand for the event, which prompted some key Republican candidates -- including gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis and Senate hopeful Jane Norton -- to stay away. * Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) campaign has a lot of Sharron Angle (R) quotes to choose from when making ads, but in the latest spot, Reid's team goes after Angle for saying she doesn't consider it her responsibility to help create jobs. * And in Tennessee, the competitive GOP gubernatorial primary finally appears to have a frontrunner. A poll from the local NBC affiliate shows Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam (R) leading the pack with 32%, followed by Rep. Zach Wamp with 21%. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
OBAMA ON THE TRAIL.... After a town-hall event in Wisconsin last week, I noted that President Obama "appears to be in campaign mode." From here on out, I think we can drop the "appeared." The president was in Las Vegas yesterday, for example, rallying support -- and raising money -- for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). We got to hear a little bit about Obama's thoughts on Reid's challenger, extremist Sharron Angle (R).
The president went on to talk about the $20 billion victims' fund for the Gulf Coast, and Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) apology to BP. Without mentioning Angle by name, Obama explained, "Harry's opponent, she agreed with this guy. She called the compensation we're providing 'a slush fund.' To compensate fishermen and compensate shrimpers and compensate small restaurant owners. Now, a few hours later, her campaign puts out a memo saying, well, she didn't mean that. They said there was some 'confusion.' And I'm sure she meant 'slush fund' in the nicest possible way." Earlier in the day, the president was in Kansas City, Missouri, hoping to give a boost to Robin Carnahan in Missouri's very close Senate race. In addition to highlighting Barton's BP apology, John Boehner's "an ant" analogy, and Republicans' awful record on fiscal responsibility, Obama made the campaign message of the next four months abundantly clear: "[T]he last thing we should do is go back to the very ideas that got us into this mess in the first place."
And to think, unless the economy starts improving very quickly, and/or Democrats start pushing some ambitious new job-creation measures, all of this may fall on deaf ears. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
'IT'S NOT LEADERSHIP. IT'S DEMAGOGUERY'.... Of all the recent ideological purges in the Republican Party -- Specter, Crist, Scozzafava, Bennett -- Rep. Bob Inglis's was arguably the most jarring. The South Carolina congressman had a pretty conservative voting record, but was nevertheless humiliated in a GOP primary a couple of weeks ago, losing by a ridiculous 42-point margin, 71% to 29%. What precipitated such a defeat? Inglis expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on energy policy; he urged his constituents not to take Glenn Beck too seriously; and he said his main focus as a lawmaker was to find "solutions" to problems. Last year, Inglis said the Republican Party has a chance "to understand we are all in need of some grace." The result: GOP voters turned on him. Inglis talked to the Associated Press this week, and lamented the fact that Republican leaders are created a toxic political environment. He was especially disappointed by the health care debate -- Inglis strongly opposed the Democratic proposal, but was disappointed by his own allies' rhetoric.
Inglis added that in the South, some of the right's hatred of President Obama is driven by racism. The South Carolinian's remarks come just a week after Sen. Bob Bennett (R) of Utah, defeated in his re-election bid by his own party's activists -- for reasons very similar to Inglis -- conceded publicly that he finds "plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas." For many in the party, I suspect the criticism from Inglis and Bennett will be dismissed as sour grapes. They lost because GOP voters rejected them, the argument will go, so they're bitter. But to ignore the importance of their concerns would be a mistake. Inglis and Bennett were kicked out of Congress because they were willing to work with people they disagreed with, and took the notion of problem-solving seriously. As the Republican Party moves further and further to the right, the rejection of officials like Inglis and Bennett signals a dangerous trend for the political system. What's worse, Inglis suggests the GOP's demagoguery will eventually backfire, causing voters to move away from the party preying on their fears. But in the short-term, that's probably backwards -- if Republicans do very well in November, as seems likely, they'll conclude that their recent tactics are a recipe for success. The result will be more offensive politics, not less. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
LET THE SUNSHINE IN.... By their own admission, congressional Republicans have not yet crafted a policy agenda, but claim they intend to use "America Speaking Out" -- the taxpayer-financed online gimmick -- to help give the party a slate of ideas they'll pursue if elected. This became slightly more problematic the other day when we learned House GOP leaders will huddle with corporate lobbyists next week, and give them a chance to tell Republicans what the party's agenda should be. Matt Finkelstein responded to the news with a cheeky idea that sounds pretty reasonable.
The whole "America Speaking Out" initiative is billed, at a minimum, as a transparent, participatory project. Americans can offer policy ideas, consider others' suggestions, express their support or disapproval, etc. The party has already said it'll ignore the contributions they don't like, but at least the process is played out online for anyone to see. But next week, America Speaking Out in public will become Lobbyists Speaking Out behind closed doors. John Boehner has already conceded that meetings like these will play a key role in dictating the Republican Party's vision in the near future. It's hardly outrageous to suggest this occur in public. What's the Republican response? That their meeting to allow lobbyists to help shape the GOP policy agenda has to be held behind closed doors? —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
PLAYING THE 'GIRL' CARD?.... Sharron Angle, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, has generated a fair amount of controversy for herself. Between her radical policy positions, offensive comments, and reluctance to answer questions, Angle has become one of the most outlandish Senate candidates in years. Not surprisingly, her opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has done what any candidate would do in his situation -- he's letting voters know about Angle's extremism. Yesterday, the Republican tried out a new argument.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this one. Two major party candidates, four months before the election, are criticizing each other in public. This is an example of the male candidate "trying to hit the girl"? Seriously? This is arguably the most anti-feminist political tack I've seen in a very long time -- not just because women aren't "girls," but also because it's predicated on the notion that women candidates aren't strong enough to be scrutinized. Angle seems to be arguing that women should be held to an easier standard -- she's "the girl," so don't be too forceful in letting the public know what she believes. How absurd. I suppose I understand the underlying strategy here. Angle's campaign wants Reid to think twice before going on the offensive. "If we're too critical," Reid is supposed to think, "it might look misogynistic." This whole line of thinking just isn't healthy. Angle's a candidate for U.S. Senate with a radical background and agenda. If she's afraid of scrutiny, she shouldn't be in the race. —Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
THE GOP'S GROWN-UP CONTINGENT SPEAKS UP.... Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pretended to understand foreign policy and national security this week, publishing an op-ed trashing the New START treaty, which he characterized as President Obama's "worst foreign policy mistake yet." Romney's argument was a "thoroughly ignorant" attempt. Yesterday, to his enormous credit, a leading Senate Republican was willing to call Romney out publicly on his pathetic display.
It was fairly devastating. Lugar, a conservative senator and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not only highlighted a variety of Romney claims that were patently false, but even suggested the former one-term governor's logic was flawed. Lugar did everything short of calling Romney a shameless, foolish hack -- and he almost did that. It's exceedingly rare for respected, seasoned Republican senators to call out leading party voices like this, which made Lugar's remarks that much more important. Michael Crowley argued, "What you're seeing, it seems to me, is a struggle between the GOP's old-guard national security center and an resurgent, post-Iraq hawkish right wing -- one that also includes Sarah Palin. The ambitious national politicians are driving the party's agenda to places the seasoned experts don't think it should go." That sounds about right, but it's worth emphasizing that the two competing Republican wings are not engaged in a genuine debate -- one of these wings simply has no idea what they're talking about. This isn't moderates vs. wingnuts, pragmatists vs. idealists, or even neocons vs. realists. Rather, this is people who know something about foreign policy and national security issues vs. uninformed right-wing activists trying to impress Fox News viewers in advance of the next GOP primary. As Lugar reminded Romney yesterday, veteran Republicans with extensive records on these issues -- Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz, Reagan Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein, Colin Powell, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) -- have all enthusiastically endorsed New START, and have urged Congress to ratify it. Moreover, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen has said the treaty has "the full support" of the uniformed military. Romney wanted to play grown-up this week, laying the groundwork for credibility on these issues in advance of 2012. He's failed miserably. —Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
NEVER HAND TANCREDO A MICROPHONE.... In Colorado, Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) has proven to be one of the year's more extreme politicians, vying for inclusion in the Sharron Angle/Rand Paul radical contingent. It certainly wasn't surprising, then, that former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has endorsed Buck, and appeared at a rally with the candidate yesterday. What was slightly more jarring, however, was what Tancredo had to say to the (fairly small) crowd. The former congressman highlighted many of the threats the nation has faced: the Cold War, the Civil War, the attacks of 9/11, etc. But then Tancredo identified what he considers the biggest threat of them all. "I firmly believe this -- it's not just, you know, sort of a dramatic statement that a person would make to get press or something, or ink," he said. "I believe this with all my heart. The greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the founding fathers is the guy that is in the White House today." For the record, I don't doubt Tancredo's sincerity. He wants us to believe he genuinely believes this, and I'm entirely convinced that he does. Of course, the problem isn't with earnestness, it's with his sanity. Buck later talked to reporters and said he was "surprised when Tom said that," adding that Tancredo "tends to exaggerate sometimes." But why should Buck be surprised? Isn't his campaign, and others like it, predicated on exploiting exactly this kind of hysterical extremism? Isn't that why Buck invited Tancredo to campaign at his side in the first place? If the issue here were merely Tancredo's penchant for exaggeration, it'd be easier to dismiss. The more important larger point is the truly dangerous phenomenon -- candidates pandering to the unhinged right, stoking the flames of blind rage and ignorance. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
July 8, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Huge, late-breaking court ruling: "A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act." * In the absolute best case scenario, BP believes the relief wells in the Gulf can be completed ahead of schedule. Given BP's track record and credibility, caveat emptor. True or not, a couple of key moments are coming up in the oil spill crisis, including one this weekend. * The swap: "All 10 of the accused Russian spies held in the United States pleaded guilty Thursday at a hearing in Manhattan, a key step in a reported deal under negotiation with Russia for the largest swap of espionage detainees since the Cold War." The larger diplomatic implications are encouraging. * It's still obviously too high, but I'll take encouraging economic news where I can find it: "New U.S. claims for unemployment insurance fell more than expected last week, government data showed on Thursday, while the number of people continuing to receive benefits in the final week of June was the lowest in seven months." * In less-encouraging news: "Over all, same-stores sales for the nation's retailers rose 3.1 percent in June, slightly below expectations. Robert Samuels, senior retail analyst for Phoenix Equities, said in a note to clients that the results were 'lackluster at best.' Analysts characterized the outlook as shaky." * Key arrests in Norway: "Three suspected al-Qaida members were arrested Thursday morning in what Norwegian and U.S. officials said was a terrorist plot linked to similar plans in New York and England." * RNC Chairman Michael Steele today vowed not to resign, but he nevertheless continued to lose support from Republican lawmakers. * If CNN is going to have J. Christian Adams on, it really should let the audience know all about his background. * Fascinating discussion: Jonathan Cohn bemoans lack of grassroots pressure for climate change legislation; Josh Nelson offers a thoughtful response; Cohn responds to the response. Worth a read. * Four-star Marine Gen. James Mattis will replace Gen. David Petraeus as head of the U.S. Central Command, overseeing combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq. * Oh, good, Fox News and Republicans are talking about "death panels" again. * On a related note, many high-profile conservatives aren't just wrong about health care policy, they're incoherent. * Why aren't more low-income students graduating from college? * Dick Morris is such a hack, even Fox & Friends hosts mock him. * And in case you haven't heard, one of the more notable right-wing fits of the week has to do with Muslims and NASA. Apparently, conservatives are afraid of Muslims in space or something. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
CUCCINELLI'S UNIQUE APPROACH TO THE LAW.... For a while, it seemed like every week there was a new controversy surrounding Virginia's extremely conservative attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli, who has a habit of, shall we say, straying from the mainstream. We haven't heard too much from "The Cooch" lately, but rest assured, he's still coming up with fascinating approaches to the law.
Now, I'm not an attorney, and can't speak to the merit of Cuccinelli's argument. But I know plenty of couples who were married outside of Virginia, and then moved to the Commonwealth, who assume state validity of their marriages isn't a problem. I guess they'll have to start scrambling?* And speaking of Cuccinelli, I've neglected to mention that, just two weeks ago, the Virginia AG argued that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was not designed to protect gay Americans. He was serious. At this point, the list of Cuccinelli's excesses is getting pretty long. Virginia's AG has, after all, been palling around with radicals, recently considered a literacy test for some Virginians wishing to vote, questioned President Obama's citizenship, rescinded legal protections for gays at Virginia universities, argued publicly that it doesn't cost the public any money when he and his office work on a frivolous lawsuit, launched a bizarre climate change witch hunt, and, of course temporarily added a modesty shield to Virginia's great seal. And he's only been in office since January. * Update: The Post's reporting originally told readers, "Marry outside Va. and it may not count," and I relied on this analysis for the post. The paper now seems to be walking that back a bit, noting a message from the state A.G.'s office that "Cuccinelli's May decision confirmed existing law and has long been the guidance provided the Virginia Department of Health on its website." —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
A PRESIDENT WITH NO TIME TO WASTE.... Love him or hate him -- or occasionally maybe both -- President Obama is not exactly pursuing a laidback, static agenda. Peter Beinart recently made the case that Obama has recorded more significant milestones in 18 months than the last two Democratic administrations achieved in 12 years. Rachel Maddow observed, "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." So, why is the president in such a hurry? Newsweek's Howard Fineman thinks it has to do with Obama's style and sense of history.
Jamelle Bouie thinks there are more structural factors at play.
My take is far closer to Bouie's, and I'd emphasize two related points. The first is that Obama has proven to be far more ambitious than recent presidents because of circumstances -- Bush failed so spectacularly, Obama really didn't have much of a choice but to craft an unusually bold agenda. The to-do list was simply too long and too important for any other course of action. The second is that Obama no doubt realizes that presidents very rarely have congressional majorities this large. Sure, FDR and LBJ had even bigger Democratic majorities, and no president before him has ever had to get 60% of the Senate on literally every bill of consequence, but the current Democratic majorities in Congress are the largest either party has had in a generation, and they'll very likely be the largest of Obama's tenure. "The president is swinging for the fences because that is what home-run hitters do"? Perhaps, but he's also swinging for the fences because he's got a friendly pitcher on the mound, who's about to be replaced and won't return. —Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
VITTER PARSES THE MEANING OF 'WOMEN'S ISSUES'.... Sen. David Vitter (R), the scandal-plagued Louisianan, seemed to get caught yesterday in a pretty damaging lie. Today, we're starting to get a sense of just how thinly Vitter is trying to slice the truth. At issue is Brent Furer, an aide Vitter kept on his taxpayer-financed payroll, despite Furer having held his ex-girlfriend hostage, threatening to kill her, and attacking her with a knife. The right-wing senator knew about this, and not only kept Furer on his staff, but tasked Furer with helping oversee women's issues for his office. Yesterday, Vitter was asked why Furer was assigned to cover women's issues. The senator categorically denied it, insisting the issue has been "completely misreported." But "numerous records and published accounts," based exclusively on word from Vitter's office, clearly showed when it came to staff assignments, Furer was Vitter's legislative assistant on women's issues. Vitter was later asked specifically, what did Furer work on? "He handled issues including abortion issues, including several other issues," Vitter said, "but not women's affairs." For crying out loud. According to Vitter, Furer worked on abortion rights and domestic violence legislation, but these aren't women's issues. So, here's the question: does the humiliated senator not know what the phrase "women's issues" mean, or is David Vitter the clumsiest liar in Congress? —Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
A 'LEMON SITUATION'.... Earlier this year, Sharron Angle, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, took a very rigid line against women's reproductive rights. Asked about women who get impregnated by a rapist or by way of incest, Angle said, "You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan." That was in January. In the months since, Angle's position hasn't changed, but her rhetoric has become more offensive. Sam Stein flags this radio interview Angle did last week, in which she explained that her "personal feeling is that we need to err on the side of life." The interviewer, Alan Stock, followed up by asking a hypothetical: imagine a young girl gets pregnant after being raped by her father. "How do you explain this to her," Stock asked, "in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby? Angle replied:
It's becoming increasingly clear why Angle worked so hard to avoid journalists -- they tend to ask questions, she tends to answer them, and the result tends to be appalling. Indeed, it's just a banner day for Angle. Yesterday, the extremist candidate condemned Harry Reid's successful efforts to save tens of thousands of jobs through MGM Resorts' massive CityCenter casino project on the Las Vegas Strip. Angle said she wouldn't have worked to create those jobs as a U.S. senator, inexplicably comparing it to "shifting the chairs on the deck of the Titanic." In related news, we talked earlier about Angle condemning the victims' fund established by BP at President Obama's urging. This afternoon, her campaign sent Greg Sargent a statement, walking Angle's comments back, saying she was "incorrect" and "shouldn't have used the term slush fund." —Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)
KARL ROVE'S HILARIOUS ADVICE.... One of the more common arguments from Democrats is that Republicans simply want to go back to the same failed policies of the Bush/Cheney era. Karl Rove uses his Wall Street Journal column today to rather explicitly make that case that Democrats are exactly right.
I'm delighted to hear it. And what might this "agenda for increasing jobs and prosperity" look like?
That's right -- Karl Rove's "jobs and prosperity" agenda encourages Republicans to, quite literally, support the Bush/Cheney "jobs and prosperity" agenda from the last decade. There was no indication that Rove was kidding, or that his column was published as some kind of satire. Look, I realize that Rove isn't the sharpest crayon in the box, but his advice to the GOP is so ridiculous on its face, I'm hard pressed to imagine why the Wall Street Journal published it. His argument is that the Bush/Cheney policies that already failed spectacularly might work if we just try them again. How would Rove suggest paying for these tax cuts? The same way Rove dealt with this when he ran the White House: by not paying for them at all. The tax cuts that didn't create jobs and didn't generate economic growth did leave us with massive budget deficits, but that doesn't stop ol' Karl from insisting that the already-failed policies will this time make reducing deficits -- the deficits Rove left for Democrats to clean up -- "more manageable." Republicans will win, Rove concludes, if they just tell voters we should go back to the policies we already know don't work. Bush failed miserably, but if we just give his painful failures one more try, everything will work out fine. Honestly, maybe Karl Rove is just some kind of performance artist, hoping to make Republican pundits look foolish. It would make more sense than Rove actually believing this nonsense. —Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
THEY DO LOVE THEIR LOBBYISTS.... Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he couldn't tell anyone what Republicans would do if they won a congressional majority. Hoping to evade any kind of substantive debate, Boehner said he preferred to wait -- his taxpayer-financed "America Speaking Out" gimmick would tell GOP candidates what to think. The next question, then, is who'll shape the "America Speaking Out" project. It obviously isn't the public -- GOP leaders are ignoring ideas generated by the initiative that they don't already like -- but it might be the lobbyists. (via Alex Seitz-Wald)
Imagine that. House Republicans don't have a policy agenda, but they're willing to put one together, just as soon as the lobbyists tell the party what to think. This seems to fit into a larger pattern. When the Senate began work on a jobs bill, Republicans huddled with corporate lobbyists. When the House began work on Wall Street reform, Republicans huddled with industry lobbyists. When Congress worked on health care reform, Republicans huddled with insurance lobbyists. When the Senate moved forward on an energy/climate bill, Republicans huddled with energy lobbyists. This even extends to candidate recruitment. When Republicans needed a U.S. Senate candidate in Indiana they turned to Dan Coats -- a corporate bank lobbyist who lives in D.C. If I didn't know better, I might think Republicans' "Tea Party populism" shtick is just some kind of cheap charade. That couldn't be, could it? —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
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. * Top strategists throughout the Democratic Party have been circulating a chart recently, documenting 10 Republican-friendly groups and the amount they've collectively pledged to spend on this year's midterm elections: $200 million. Nearly every penny would go to support GOP candidates. (For context, the $200 million would be considerably more than the total spent by every independent group in the 2008 campaign combined.) * President Obama will be on the campaign trail again today, hosting events in Nevada and Missouri. * West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) reiterated yesterday that he would not appoint himself to serve temporarily in the vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D). But Manchin strongly hinted that when there's a special election -- which he hopes is in November -- he'll be on the ballot. * In California, a new Field Poll shows incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading Carly Fiorina (R), best known as the failed/fired CEO of HP, by just three points, 47% to 44%. * It's Rasmussen, so take the results with a grain of salt, but the pollster shows Marco Rubio (R) with a narrow lead over Gov. Charlie Crist (I) in Florida's Senate race, 36% to 34%. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) is third with 15%. * In North Carolina's Senate race, the polls are all over the map. Rasmussen now shows incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R) leading Elaine Marshall (D) by 15 points, 52% to 37%, though the same pollster recently found Burr up by one point. PPP this week found Burr's lead at five points. * And in Illinois, freshman Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) is facing off against Adam Kinzinger (R), a captain in the U.S. Air Force Reserves. In a growing problem for Illinois Republicans, it now appears that Kinzinger exaggerated his military service record. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
STILL TAKING BP'S SIDE.... After President Obama convinced BP to set aside $20 billion for victims of the devastating oil spill along the Gulf Coast, Republicans went out of their way to side with BP. Indeed, the Republican response to the victims' fund included an apology to the foreign oil giant, and widespread condemnations of the relief money for families and small businesses. It was one of the more transparently ridiculous political strategies in recent memory -- one national poll found 82% of the public backing the creation of the fund -- and the GOP quickly found other things to complain about. But Sharron Angle, the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, hasn't quite given up on the pro-BP talking points, and went after the victims' fund on a radio show yesterday.
Angle went on to say that the Obama administration's response to the disaster is an "overreaction." She added "they" are using the disaster "to get in cap and trade, and every crime and penalty, and slush fund." This is the same Angle, you'll recall, who said shortly after the spill crisis began that her preferred energy policy would be to "deregulate" oil companies like BP. It just never occurred to me that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could be this lucky. Update: Angle's campaign starts walking back the "slush fund" remarks. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
FALLING SHORT OF THE BARE MINIMUM FOR FISCAL CREDIBILITY.... It's a pretty simple litmus test -- those who want to reduce the deficit can't insist that the Pentagon budget is untouchable. It's an immediate credibility killer, reflecting a fundamental lack of seriousness about the subject. Even some of the Tea Party crowd agrees that the enormous, bloated spending on the Defense Department has to be part of the mix when weighing cuts to the budget. A certain former half-term governor is trying to convince the right-wing "movement" to think otherwise.
In the speech, Palin insisted that she has a better understanding of military spending than Republican Defense Secretary Robert Gates. She wasn't kidding. Look, this doesn't have to be complicated. The United States now spends about as much on defense as every other country on the planet combined. Secretary 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. This year, even conservatives who have long considered the Pentagon budget off-limits are starting to come around. Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) worked with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on a commission that recommended hundreds of billions of dollars in savings in defense spending. 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." It's the first hurdle that has to be cleared for the rest of the discussion to even get underway. Sarah Palin has already proven to be a fool, but for anyone serious about fiscal responsibility to take her advice seriously is ridiculous. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
MAYBE ACTUAL DEFICIT HAWKS WILL BE MORE PERSUASIVE.... When left-leaning economists like Paul Krugman urge policymakers to ignore deficit concerns and pass additional stimulus to boost the economy, too much of the establishment fails to take his advice seriously. Despite the fact that Krugman and those who share his beliefs tend to be correct, their recommendations are deemed "predictable," and therefore easier to disregard. I've been trying to think, then, of whose guidance the establishment might take more seriously. Mark Zandi, the chief economist with Moody's Economy.com and a former adviser to John McCain, takes a similar line to that of Krugman, but he's not persuading folks, either. Maybe it'll help if ostensible deficit hawks hear from actual deficit hawks? Matt Miller labels himself "a deficit hawk to the core," but he agrees that prioritizing deficit reduction over economic growth at this point is a mistake.
Or how about the Concord Coalition, which exists to push deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility. Diane Lim Rogers, an economist with the organization, seems to think it's misguided for Congress to reject extended unemployment benefits over deficit concerns.
Concord Coalition president Robert Bixby added, "As a deficit hawk, I wouldn't worry about extending unemployment benefits. It is not going to add to the long-term structural deficit, and it does address a serious need." Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, is constantly expressing concerns about the nation's fiscal future, but he recently conceded that prioritizing deficit reduction "would probably slow the economic recovery." He added that he sees "no intrinsic contradiction between providing additional fiscal stimulus today, while the unemployment rate is high and many factories and offices are underused, and imposing fiscal restraint several years from now, when output and employment will probably be close to their potential." If genuine deficit hawks don't have a problem with short-term deficit spending to improve the economy, faux deficit hawks in Congress really don't have much of an excuse. Of course, the exercise itself is largely pointless -- lawmakers who claim to prioritize the deficit over the economy aren't really serious anyway, but the judgment of those they should find credible just helps drive the point home. —Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
'BADLY BROKEN'.... The negative response among lawmakers to President Obama's recess appointments yesterday were hardly unexpected. Republicans complained because that's what they do, and at least one Senate Democrat complained, apparently motivated by institutional pride. When White House reporters pressed Robert Gibbs on this yesterday, asking why it was necessary to appoint Dr. Don Berwick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the press secretary noted the entire nominating process has broken down, which in turn forces the president's hand.
Putting aside the merits of the Berwick move, can anyone come up with a credible reason to disagree with Gibbs' criticism of the system? Can anyone seriously look at the existing process and think it's an effective way for an advanced democratic government to operate in the 21st century? A civics textbook would make it seem simple -- the president chooses a nominee for a government post, and the nomination goes to the Senate. A relevant committee holds a hearing and considers the nominee's qualifications. From there, the nomination goes to the Senate floor, and if a majority approves, he or she can get to work on the country's behalf. And that was a fairly straightforward system for most of American history. But as we've seen of late, that process has completely fallen apart. Some of this has to do with the Senate having confirmation authority over far too many administrative positions, but most of it has to do with blind, petty obstructionism -- holds and/or filibusters that can delay consideration of nominees for months, and in some cases, well over a year. In April, the Senate voted to confirm Lael Brainard to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury for international affairs -- a genuinely important post, especially in the midst of a global financial crisis. Her background and qualifications are impeccable, but her nomination was delayed for 13 months -- because Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was unhappy with administration enforcement of prohibitions on internet gambling. In an even more infamous example, a month later, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) blocked votes on Pentagon officials because he wanted to be paid off in pork. Fiascos like these aren't rare at all -- they've been entirely common for the last year and a half. As regular readers know, I'm not a big fan of recess appointments, no matter which president is making them. But given the enormous number of nominees waiting for confirmation, and endless Republican tactics to undermine government effectiveness, I just don't see how the White House has any choice. If the GOP doesn't like it, they can start allowing up-or-down votes on pending nominees. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
VITTER CLAIMS CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE.... Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has largely hidden from journalists lately, but answered some questions yesterday, in a media availability that lasted less than two minutes. Of particular interest to reporters was the scandal-plagued Vitter's decision to keep Brent Furer on his taxpayer-financed payroll, despite Furer having held his ex-girlfriend hostage, threatening to kill her, and attacking her with a knife. Vitter was aware of Furer's problems, but, according to an ABC report, he nevertheless kept Furer on as an aide. Literally adding insult to injury, Vitter reportedly tasked Furer with helping oversee women's issues for the senator's office. Asked about this yesterday, Vitter said Furer "was not" assigned to work on women's issues. When the reporter followed up, asking, "He was not assigned to women's issues?" Vitter replied, "Correct." He added that the issue has been "completely misreported." The senator left no wiggle room in his categorical denial. There's evidence to suggest Vitter was lying. Brian Beutler reported overnight that there are "numerous records and published accounts" that relied on Vitter's office for staff assignments, all of which "name Furer as Vitter's legislative assistant on women's issues." And looking specifically at the dates on the materials, Furer was still listed in that capacity after Vitter learned of his aide's violent attack against his ex-girlfriend. Brian also noted that Beth Meeks, executive director of the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, worked with Vitter's office on domestic violence legislation, and was "personally informed that Furer was Vitter's point man on the issue." In one sense, Vitter's judgment looks ridiculous for keeping Furer on the public payroll at all, regardless of which issues the aide was assigned to cover. But for Vitter to ask Furer to oversee women's issues, and then for Vitter to apparently lie about it directly to reporters while on camera takes this story to a new level. If Senate Dems want to play hardball, they'll start whispering -- today -- about whether Vitter's various scandals should force him to resign. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
FEDERAL RESERVE EYES POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS.... When it comes to preventing another economic downturn, President Obama wants to act, but needs Congress. Congress can act, but doesn't want to. The private sector would like to act, but is struggling with weak consumer demand. And that leaves the Fed.
The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis told the Post that there's "plenty more" Fed officials could do "if we had to." There are some interesting angles to all of this, but it's worth emphasizing that, at least for now, the Fed isn't close to the "if we had to" moment. The article notes that officials expect the already-sluggish recovery to continue into 2011, and that the possible intervening steps "are not imminent." Those of us who look at the status quo as being not nearly good enough, and want to see prompt actions to boost the economy in the short term, apparently don't have too many allies among Federal Reserve officials. But I suppose there's a little comfort in knowing that the Fed had additional options, and that preliminary discussions are underway. Some of the possible steps seem largely cosmetic, such as strengthening the language of some reports to signal to investors that interest rates aren't going up, while others are at least somewhat more substantive, including the possibility of a major new asset-purchase program. "I think we do have a variety of tools available, and we shouldn't rule any tool out," Eric Rosengren, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, told the Post. "If we're uncomfortable with how long it's going to take us to reach either element of our dual mandate [of maximum employment and stable prices], we'll have to make some adjustments to policy." The sooner, the better. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
July 7, 2010
WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * NATO airstrike in Afghanistan mistakenly kills five Afghan army allies. * Iraq: "A suicide bomber blew himself up among a crowd of Shiite pilgrims at a police checkpoint in Baghdad on Wednesday night, killing at least 28 people and wounding 81 others despite intensive efforts by Iraqi security forces to foil such attacks." * Not a big surprise: "A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming." * Businesses are investing less because there's not enough consumer demand. I have no idea why conservatives find this so hard to understand. * There were three recess appointments today, not just the high-profile one. * Good move: "The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new rules to limit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution from power plants. It hopes to implement the rules in 2012." * The appeal: "The Obama administration has asked a federal court in Louisiana to reinstate the ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, saying the moratorium was a rational response to the unprecedented emergency of the BP oil spill." * On a related note, President Obama will make visit the Gulf Coast again later this month. It'll be his fifth visit since the disaster. * The White House isn't equivocating at all in its support for the lawsuit challenging Arizona's anti-immigrant law. * After stalling for weeks, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle (R) vetoed state legislation that would have permitted same-sex civil unions. * In an interesting media move the Huffington Post has bought Pollster.com. * Speaking of interesting media moves, CNN caved to right-wing activists and fired its Senior Editor of Mideast Affairs over a poorly-worded tweet. * There are now two House Republicans calling for RNC Chairman Michael Steele's resignation. * I honestly can't imagine being denied leukemia treatment over a one-cent underpayment. * Joe Scarborough gets Markos blacklisted from MSNBC. When Liz Cheney gets similar treatment, I'll be impressed. * Ayn Rand-ish arguments in support of for-profit colleges don't stand up well to scrutiny. * The July/August 2010 issue of the Washington Monthly is online. Here's the table of contents. * Former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) slips, accidentally admits that Fox News helps push Republican messages. * And if you haven't seen it, Terry Savage's bizarre column criticizing kids over free lemonade is one of the stranger pieces I've read in a very long while. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Following up on the last item, scandal-plagued Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana came out of hiding today to formally file his re-election documents. There were a few difficulties when reporters began asking the senator some of the questions he's been avoiding. But I was also intrigued by a campaign email Vitter sent to supporters this afternoon, around the time of the filing. Most of it is pretty boilerplate, but this portion stood out for me.
Putting aside the obvious cracks about Vitter fighting for "Louisiana families" -- when a right-wing senator caught with prostitutes mentions the importance of families, he's asking for trouble -- it was disconcerting to see a sitting senator suggest the president and his supporters are trying to "steal our country." Who gets to be included in Vitter's "our"? Who does Vitter think the country is being stolen from, exactly? These need not be considered rhetorical questions. The duly-elected president and the duly-elected Congress are trying to implement the policy agenda they promised voters to pursue. Vitter can disagree, and he can even engage in scandalous and unprecedented obstructionism to prevent the majority from governing during a crisis, but how does he arrive at the conclusion that America's elected leadership is trying to "steal our country"? —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
VITTER COMES OUT OF HIDING (BRIEFLY).... About two weeks ago, we learned some painful new information about Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana, who's running for re-election despite having been caught with prostitutes after running on a "family values" platform. ABC News discovered that Vitter knowingly kept aide Brent Furer on his taxpayer financed payroll, despite Furer having held his ex-girlfriend hostage, threatening to kill her, and stabbing her with a knife on her hand and neck. Sen. Vitter was aware of Furer's problems, but, according to the ABC report, nevertheless paid Furer to oversee women's issues for the senator's office. (Furer had also been arrested on four other occasions -- three times for DUI, and once for cocaine possession -- and remains wanted on an open warrant.) Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), Vitter's opponent, brings these issues up from time to time. Vitter has responded by doing what far too many GOP candidates do lately -- he hid. Today, however, Vitter left his undisclosed location long enough to file his re-election materials in Baton Rouge. Louisiana Dems sent Eric Kleefeld a transcript of the scandal-plagued senator's run-in with local reporters. Vitter initially refused to talk at all about his prostitution problem, and then dismissed the Furer scandal as "something that happened two years ago."
Now, as for whether Vitter had Furer working on women's issues, the ABC News report states that Furer "has spent the last five years posted in his Washington office to handle, among other things, women's issues." If that's mistaken, I'm not sure why Vitter's office hasn't tried to correct this since the report first aired two weeks ago. Given Vitter's record of integrity, it's certainly possible the right-wing senator was lying to reporters today. At this point, it's unclear. Frankly, this detail matters, but not as much as the larger question of Vitter's bizarre judgment. Of course, since today's public appearance didn't go especially well, don't be surprised if the senator stops talking to the media again for a long while. —Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
HELPING THE CLIMATE, CUTTING THE DEFICIT.... All those folks who claim that deficit reduction is their top priority? Have I got a bill for them.
To review, the American Power Act would overhaul a broken energy framework, combat global warming, make America more competitive globally, lower the budget deficit, create jobs in a burgeoning industry, and do all of this without significantly raising costs for consumers. And Senate Republicans don't even want to let the chamber vote on this. It also brings to mind a fairly consistent trend in recent policy debates. Republicans like to pretend that deficit reduction is their (and their base's) top priority -- but have you noticed how often they reject ideas to actually help close the budget shortfall? The Democratic health care reform proposal lowered the deficit ... and Republicans opposed it. The Democratic student-loan bill lowered the deficit ... and Republicans opposed it. The Democratic effort to let Bush tax cuts for the rich expire will lower the deficit ... and Republicans oppose it. The Democratic energy/climate bill would lower the deficit ... and Republicans oppose it. The Democratic effort to reduce bloated Pentagon spending would lower the deficit ... and Republicans oppose it. And if you press Republican leaders on how they'd prefer to lower the deficit, they can't answer the question. It's almost as if Republicans say they care about deficit reduction, until they're offered a chance to actually reduce the deficit. If I didn't know better, I might think GOP officials don't think a deficit-reduction measure "counts" unless it undermines struggling families in some way. That couldn't be, could it? —Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
WHAT'S BAD FOR THE COFFERS IS GOOD FOR THE REPUTATION.... Yesterday, the Washington Post and Politico both ran articles about Wall Street elites -- hedge fund managers, bankers, financial services executives -- moving away from the Democratic Party. The more Dems have pushed for new accountability and safeguards for the industry, the more the industry has curtailed its support for the party. The Wall Street Journal also recently noted the industry's growing love for Republicans. Yesterday, the official Twitter feed for the Republican National Committee rejoiced: "Dems Rapidly Losing Wall Street Donors," followed by a link to the WaPo piece. I understand the logic here -- less money for Dems, and more money for Republicans, obviously makes the RNC happy. But there's a flip-side to all of this. It's often overlooked, but Wall Street really isn't popular with the public right now. Those hedge fund managers, bankers, financial services executives who don't like Democrats and are moving closer to the GOP because Republicans oppose stronger industry safeguards? They're the ones who nearly destroyed the global financial system in 2008. Republican officials in D.C. were giddy about these media reports, but they may not realize that tensions between Democrats and Wall Street aren't necessarily a political loser when Wall Street is widely hated.
I'm actually a little surprised to see Republicans so tone-deaf on this. After Wall Street's recklessness sent the economy into a brutal recession, and the industry was rescued by a deeply unpopular bailout, a lot of Americans started holding Wall Street in fairly low regard. And yet, the party not only boasts about the industry's new-found love for the GOP, it also backs Senate candidates like Ohio's John Kasich and Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, who are running directly from their posts on Wall Street. In RNC Chairman Michael Steele's case, he went so far as to suggest Americans should trust the financial industry that brought the global system to its knees to now grow the economy and create jobs. It seems hard to imagine most voters finding this persuasive. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
ROMNEY'S 'THOROUGHLY IGNORANT' NEW START CRITIQUE.... Watching Mitt Romney talk about foreign policy and national security issues has always reminded me a bit of a kid playing "dress up" by wearing grown-up clothes. It's endearing, in a silly kind of way, to see Romney pretend to have credibility on the subject, but like the kids whose clothes don't fit, the effort quickly leads to ridiculous results. Remember the time Romney told ABC News he would "set a deadline for bringing the troops home" from Iraq -- but only if it's a secret deadline that "the enemy" couldn't see? How about the time Romney, in 2007, said it's "entirely possible" that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the 2003 invasion? Or the time Romney pretended "Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood" were all the same thing? How about my personal favorite: the time Romney made the bizarre assertion that IAEA weapons inspectors were not allowed entry into Saddam Hussein's Iraq? But Romney just keeps trying. Yesterday, he wrote a Washington Post op-ed on the New START treaty, which he characterized as President Obama's "worst foreign policy mistake yet." The former one-term governor characterized the treaty as "a nonstarter." Some very strong responses to Romney's piece have already been published by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and the Center for American Progress' Max Bergmann, but perhaps the most detailed, point-by-point refutation comes by way of Slate's Fred Kaplan, who exposed Romney's piece as vapid nonsense.
Kaplan literally goes line by line, in as thorough a take-down as I've seen in quite a while. Romney is left looking like a fool. In the larger context, my biggest concern is that opposition to the treaty will become a standard Republican move to prove one's right-wing bona fides. That would be a disaster -- this treaty needs to pass, and like all treaties, it'll need 67 votes in the Senate. That means at least eight GOP senators have to vote for it if it comes to the floor this year, or probably more if it's voted on next year. Several officials with stature among Republicans -- Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Henry Kissinger, Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz, Reagan Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein, Colin Powell, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) -- have already endorsed New START, and have urged Congress to ratify it. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen has said the treaty "has the full support of your uniformed military." Whether Senate Republicans listens to this group or Mitt Romney remains to be seen. —Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
NOTE TO THE RIGHT: AVOID YOUTH ENTERTAINMENT.... Periodically, conservative groups and activists decide to get worked up about what young people are reading and/or watching. The results tend to be pretty embarrassing. Perhaps the quintessential modern example was Jerry Falwell going after Tinky Winky the Teletubby, but that merely started a lengthy, larger campaign. One religious right group went after "Shrek." Another targeted "Shark Tale." James Dobson launched a broadside against SpongeBob SquarePants, while Fox News' Neil Cavuto perceived "Happy Feet" as political propaganda. The "Harry Potter" series has been targeted any number of times by conservatives complaining about witchcraft. I guess it was only a matter of time before the Christian Coalition discovered Twilight.
For the record, I've never seen or read any of the entertainment these conservatives don't like, so I'm not really in a position to defend the materials. But when someone on the right starts raising fears about young people "idolizing a vampire," it's a reminder that conservatives sometimes have too much time on their hands. As for the Christian Coalition's efforts to regain influence and relevance, raising the specter of banning Twilight books probably isn't the way to go. —Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Big news out of West Virginia this morning, where Gov. Joe Manchin (D) will reportedly seek a special election this year to fill the vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). Taegan Goddard added, "Manchin said he would 'highly consider' seeking the seat himself in a special election." * In Kentucky, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows a Senate race that couldn't be any closer. Right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) and state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) are tied in the poll at 43% each. * Speaking of Rand Paul, the extremist candidate was on record opposing a physical fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. He's now reversed course, and supports the idea he rejected. * In California, a new Field Poll shows state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) leading former eBay CEO Meg Whitman by just one point in this year's gubernatorial campaign, 44% to 43%. Brown's unconventional campaign strategy seems to be costing him support among Latino voters and other key Democratic constituencies. * In Indiana, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) launched his first television ad of the Senate campaign, emphasizing his record as a sheriff for 25 years. Subtly referencing the fact that his opponent, Dan Coats, is a corporate lobbyist, Ellsworth concluded the spot by saying "the special interests and lobbyists already have enough senators on their side." * Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill, running for governor as an independent, has seen his poll numbers drop badly in the face of intense GOP attacks, but Cahill insists he's staying in the race. * Democrats hoping to defeat Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) in Minnesota this year will be pleased to hear that Tarryl Clark (D) has now raised a whopping $2 million for the House campaign. * And in Florida, disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott is faring well as a Republican gubernatorial candidate, but he hasn't quite gotten around to reading up on Florida's state government. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)
ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GOP'S MINORITY OUTREACH.... Republican officials have high hopes about Andy Barr's chances in Kentucky's 6th congressional district. Incumbent Rep. Ben Chandler (D) is perceived as potentially vulnerable, so the GOP establishment are investing heavily in Barr, a young, Lexington-area attorney. It was of some interest to Democrats, then, to learn that Barr is an active, life-long member of a country club that was all-white up until very recently.
College basketball fans may recall a recent controversy surrounding Idle Hour, when University of Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari declined to join because of its all-white membership. Last year, the country club accepted its first black member -- retired basketball star Sam Bowie. And if Barr's name seems familiar, it's because the Kentucky Republican was recently asked on camera whether he agrees with Rand Paul's criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Barr wouldn't answer, and quickly walked away from the voter who asked. I'm reminded of a comment RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who conceded that his party relied on a racially-divisive "Southern Strategy" for at least four decades, made when asked why African-American voters should support Republican candidates. "You really don't have a reason to, to be honest," Steele said. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
THE PROBLEM WITH THE ENERGY DEBATE, IN A NUTSHELL.... Ohio's Rob Portman (R) is one of the year's more confounding Senate candidates. In addition to having served as a congressman, Portman is perhaps best known for having served as the Bush/Cheney budget director (at a time when the budget became an embarrassing mess) and the Bush/Cheney trade representative (at a time when the government's trade policies were not exactly popular in Ohio). To overcome baggage like this, Portman is hoping voters ignore his background and focus more on hot-button issues. In a new ad, the Republican attacks cap-and-trade as "a job killer for Ohio," which he says will tax Americans for turning on a light bulb. As campaign nonsense goes, it's pretty boilerplate. But there are a couple of relevant angles to consider. The first is that Portman, like many Republicans, used to support cap-and-trade, writing in 1996: "Private sector incentives, such as permitting companies to trade discharge outputs, can both reduce pollution and costs. If we can harness the power of market incentives, we'll do more with less." As his party moved to the right, his priorities apparently shifted. What's more, Stephen Stromberg notes that Portman's alternative approach to energy policy, instead of regulating carbon emissions, relies on government subsidies for corn ethanol, nuclear power, natural gas, and coal.
If Portman's misleading ad was some random, isolated campaign attack, it'd be easier to overlook. But the Ohioan's spot is effectively the Republican approach to energy in a nutshell. There's room for a serious debate on one of the most serious of issues. One side of the aisle simply isn't ready for it. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
ALVIN GREENE HAS A JOBS IDEA.... In South Carolina, Alvin Greene has withstood pressure and remains the actual Democratic nominee for the Senate. This week, he talked a bit about the kind of job-creation efforts he'd like to see implemented. (via Taegan Goddard)
Sadly, I believe him -- he's probably quite serious. It's probably not surprising that Greene, who participated in a variety of truly bizarre post-primary interviews, is starting to tire of the process.
Oh my. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)
REID PUBLISHES ANGLE POLICY POSITIONS, INVITES LAWSUIT.... Sharron Angle, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Nevada, recently overhauled her website, scrubbing the previous site of her extremist positions on a variety of issues. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) campaign, out of the goodness of its heart, thought it would help Angle get her message out -- so it re-published the GOP candidate's original issue positions online for voters to see. Angle's lawyers threatened a lawsuit, claiming that showing voters what Angle said she believes would represent misuse of copyrighted materials. As of Monday, Reid's team backed off and took down the site. Yesterday, Reid's campaign, after finishing a few tweaks, put the Angle materials back online.
The issue seemed to be over various fill-in boxes and sign-up fields on the original Angle website. When the Reid camp republished the site, those fields were still active. Now, the content is still there, but the boxes are inactive. In a press release, the Reid campaign didn't sound too worried about litigation: "Just to be clear to Sharron Angle and her handlers, it's called free speech and it's nearly absolute under the First Amendment. (We know, these 'big Constitutional issues' are tough for you -- like when you said separation of Church & State was "unconstitutional" exactly one week ago.) The question is: what will Sharron Angle do now to hide her extreme views on killing Social Security and eliminating the Department of Education from Nevada voters? Perhaps she's checking to see if there are any Second Amendment remedies." It's unclear if Angle's team intends to pursue legal action, but either way, Reid and his aides have to be pleased. By throwing a fit, Angle has created more negative publicity for herself, and brought more attention to her extremist beliefs. If she files suit, Reid benefits with more coverage of Angle trying to hide her own published positions. If she doesn't, Reid benefits by having these positions in public view. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
OBAMA CUTS SHORT NONSENSE ON CMS NOMINEE.... Nearly three months ago, President Obama nominated Dr. Don Berwick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services -- an agency without a permanent administrator since October 2006. The nomination was immediately hailed as a brilliant choice by policy experts from across the ideological spectrum. Senate confirmation should have been painless. But Senate Republicans are Senate Republicans, and the Berwick nomination became a proxy fight for conservatives to complain about the Affordable Care Act in advance of the midterm elections. Yesterday, the White House decided to cut short the nonsense.
As a recess appointee, Berwick would need Senate approval to stay on the job after the current appointment ends late next year. He'll likely do some very impressive work in the interim. Berwick, considered a visionary by those who've worked with him, is president and co-founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, works as a scholar at Harvard, and has earned a reputation as a champion of patients and consumers. Families USA Executive Director Ronald Pollack said the recess appointment "augurs well for the implementation of health care reform." And that's really what this is all about -- implementation of the new law. As Jonathan Cohn explained, "CMS director is always an important job. But it's even more important now, as the Obama administration starts to implement health care reform. Not only must CMS prepare to deliver coverage to millions of new Medicaid recipients. It must also re-engineer Medicare itself, so that it pays for services in ways that foster better, more efficient care. Figuring out how to provide better care for less money is Berwick's specialty, making him, at least on paper, a perfect choice for the job." Obama needed the CMS to get to work, and just wasn't willing to endure months of inane Republican tactics. Recess appointments aren't ideal, but GOP abuses have become so common, I'm surprised the presidential power isn't exercised more frequently. As Harold Pollack noted, "This goes to the basic capacity of American government to function well, our ability to find good people, efficiently scrutinize their qualifications and goals, and to put them to work addressing the nation's serious problems." —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
STEELE SEEMS TO SURVIVE ANOTHER SCANDAL.... As of Friday, it seemed as if Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele had finally crossed the line. His controversial remarks about the war in Afghanistan had prompted multiple calls for his ouster, prompting the beleaguered party chief to furiously work the phones, convincing GOP officials and activists to overlook his comments and focus on the midterms. Christina Bellantoni reports that the efforts paid off, and that Steele will once again muddle through a scandal of his own making.
To the extent that Steele will be able to keep his job for a few more months, this is good for the RNC chairman. But the fact that the party intends to "work around him" also makes Steele utterly irrelevant with 120 days to go until Election Day. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, the Republican Party seems prepared to move forward as if it has no RNC chair. The Washington Post noted that, in some cases, "fundraisers and donors lack confidence in the organization's ability to manage its resources," and as a result, party committees like the Republican Governors Association and National Republican Senatorial Committee will play a more significant role than usual. This should be especially relevant to Democrats -- Steele's embarrassments have undermined the RNC, but that won't necessarily undermine Republican campaigns. The campaign money will still be there; it'll just go around the RNC and be spent by other party operations and "independent" groups like Karl Rove's attack machine, American Crossroads. As for Steele, after previous self-inflicted wounds, he tends to lay low for awhile. In the very near future, I wouldn't be surprised if he hid from public view until December. Steele has already cancelled a scheduled appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival, without explanation, and if Steele lines up any television interviews anytime soon, the congressional leadership will very likely send henchmen to physically restrain him. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
FAST AND LOOSE AT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.... No lobbying organization in America is more crucial to the GOP's hopes for victory this fall than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business-backed behemoth plans to funnel $50 million -- more than twice the cash holdings of the RNC and RCCC combined -- into key House and Senate races, the vast majority of which will benefit Republicans. But do the torrents of cash the Chamber raises to help the GOP also help American business? That's a whole other question, says James Verini in his revealing profile of the Chamber and its voluble president, Tom Donohue, a man whose office includes a sign that reads, "Show Me the Money." Verini sheds light on an executive who spends money almost as fast as he raises it -- if not faster -- and whose extreme opposition to regulations has led companies like Apple Inc. to drop their membership in the organization. The Chamber of Commerce, by Donohue's admission, turns out to be a front group of sorts, one that involves itself in lobbying for the least-defensible industry practices without leaving industry fingerprints on the effort. Verini also reveals a fragile organization with financial red flags and rebellious regional chambers of commerce that are taking steps to distance themselves from Donohue's national chamber.
July 6, 2010
TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Obama administration, as promised, goes after Arizona: "The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against Arizona, charging that the state's new immigration law is unconstitutional and requesting a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect. " Among other things the filing "asserts that the Arizona law would harm people's civil rights, leading to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners." * With Netanyahu visiting the White House, this was good timing: "The Israeli military said Tuesday that it had indicted "a number of" officers and soldiers for their actions during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza in the winter of 2008-9, including a staff sergeant accused of deliberately shooting at least one Palestinian civilian who was walking with a group of people waving a white flag." * Pressing charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning: "An Army intelligence analyst has been charged in connection with the leak of a controversial video of a U.S. helicopter strike and the transfer of more than 50 classified State Department cables, the military said Tuesday." * If you read far-right blogs or watch Fox News, you may have heard some hysteria about the New Black Panther Party case. Adam Serwer explains what the story is all about. * Is climate change really worth tackling? Of course it is. * Only Michael Steele's RNC would pay $12,000 to an unpaid adviser. * Does technology actually play a role in helping students learn? * Fact-checking the Sunday shows. * Believe it or not, there really was a board game called "BP Offshore Oil Strike." The owner of a British toy museum, which houses a copy of the game, said, "The parallels between the game and the current crisis... are so spooky." Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
NETANYAHU HELPS EASE WHITE HOUSE TENSIONS.... Anyone who pays even passing attention to the Middle East knows better than to feel optimistic about such issues, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at least said the right things today, which represents a departure from the recent past.
ABC's Jake Tapper noted the significance of one phrase in particular: "Netanyahu appear[ed] to suggest that in the 'coming weeks' he will take steps that could convince the Palestinians of the value of moving to direct peace talks." With a moratorium on settlement construction expiring in a few months, such a timetable matters. Indeed, Netanyahu added, "[W]hen I say 'the next few weeks,' that's what I mean. The President means that, too." Netanyahu went on to say that it's "high time" to transition from proximity talks between Israelis and Palestinians to "direct talks." The prime minister said, "I think with the help of President Obama, President Abbas and myself should engage in direct talks to reach a political settlement of peace, coupled with security and prosperity. This requires that the Palestinian Authority prepare its people for peace -- schools, textbooks, and so on. But I think at the end of the day, peace is the best option for all of us, and I think we have a unique opportunity and a unique time to do it." As for the violent raid near Gaza, the subject did not come up during the media availability, though Obama did note in his opening remarks that Gaza was discussed during their private meeting, with the president noting "progress" on Israel "allowing more goods into Gaza." Postscript: For good measure, also note that Netanyahu, perhaps inadvertently, stepped all over the far-right line on Obama's speech last year in Cairo. —Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
BROOKSIAN COMMON GROUND.... Responding to David Brooks' column earlier, I had a few areas of concern. In fairness, I should note that in his advice to President Obama about the economy, the NYT columnist had a few thoughts that were more compelling.
Some of this is vague and unhelpful -- Do what works, don't do what doesn't? I think we knew that -- but Brooks nevertheless gets around to endorsing several positions the Obama White House already supports. The columnist sees the obvious benefit of extending unemployment benefits, for example, and so do Democrats. Brooks wants to see Congress extend aid to states as a way to help stem the unemployment tide, and so do Democrats. He makes it seem like common-sense moves, which they are. Those steps wouldn't be enough, but it does matter that in a column deriding "Demand Siders," with their annoyingly "high I.Q.'s," Brooks eventually endorses two of the key elements of the Democrats' jobs bill. Ezra Klein added, "Now it may be that a retrenchment to state and local aid and unemployment insurance represents a tremendous defeat for those of us who believe the economy needs help. But getting passage of both -- and quickly -- would also be a huge help to the economy. If you can't do much more on stimulus, maybe you can at least mitigate some of the pain and prevent some of the most predictable sources of economic contraction." Agreed. By all measures, extended jobless aid and state budget assistance won't be enough to generate a robust recovery. But if "even David Brooks" could be used to help prove the point to, say, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, it'd at least be a step in the right direction. I'm not optimistic -- the rigid, obstructionist GOP leadership is far more influential with even "moderate" senators than the center-right NYT columnist -- but at this point, the economic agenda can use all the help it can get. —Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
THE GOP BASE WITH A DIFFERENT NAME IS STILL THE GOP BASE.... For many pundits and political observers, the Tea Party "movement" is something new -- a group of angry and disaffected voters who disapprove of both parties, rely on Fox News, and have no use for the political establishment. What the activists lack in leadership, expertise, clarity of thought, internal structure, and connections to reality they make up for in passion and blind rage towards a failed "system." They're political free agents, the argument goes, willing to vote for those who speak to their fears. Perhaps now would be a good time to note the differences between Tea Partiers and right-wing Republicans -- specifically, the fact that there really aren't any differences.
Agreed. Tea Partiers may not have any real affinity for the Republican leadership -- they've proven themselves willing to reject establishment-backed GOP candidates in primaries -- but they're still just Republicans, with priorities indistinguishable from the party. E.J. Dionne noted the other day, "For some months now, I have been battling against the idea that the Tea Party movement is some brand-new thing in American politics, an independent movement akin to the rebellion led by Ross Perot in the 1990s. Tea Party people, I have been arguing, are simply right-wing Republicans organized under a new banner." E.J. was right. Whether others in the media will pick up on this remains to be seen, but I'm not optimistic. —Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
JUKEBOX JOHN KEEPS CHANGING HIS TUNE.... It was only three years ago when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) partnered with Ted Kennedy and others to work on a comprehensive immigration reform package. His party's base didn't like it, but McCain had the courage to support a bipartisan bill that established a guest worker program, and provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. That, of course, was 2007. McCain soon after announced his opposition to his own proposal. Now, that courage the senator once displayed has disappeared entirely.
He added that he could support "a temporary legal worker program" after the border is secure. (Of course, since even the most rabid opponents of immigration know that a 100% secure, 2,000-mile border is impossible, McCain's talk about what could come next is folly.) But what's especially interesting here is to consider McCain's journey on this issue. Let's take a stroll down memory lane. In 2007, McCain partnered with Ted Kennedy on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. In January 2008, McCain switched and said he no longer favored the comprehensive approach and opposed his own bill. In June 2008, McCain switched back to his first position, promising a group of Latino voters that resurrecting his comprehensive 2007 bill (the one he opposed) would be his "top priority." And now, McCain has switched once again. So, for those keeping score, McCain was for comprehensive immigration reform, then against it, then for it again, then against it again. And even that wouldn't be especially annoying, were it not for the fact that McCain has taken to criticizing others for being inconsistent on immigration policy. —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
GEORGE WILL STRUGGLES TO RECOGNIZE MADNESS.... Columnist and pundit George Will considers himself something of an intellectual, often annoyed with some of the absurdities he perceives in the political system. It's why I find it troubling that Will doesn't seem to recognize truly mad politicians when he sees them. In October, for example, Will had a column about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), following a series of humiliating moments for the unhinged Minnesota Republican. Instead of highlighting Bachmann as one of Congress' more painful embarrassments, Will was impressed with her, writing, "Some of her supposed excesses are, however, not merely defensible, they are admirable." (His examples were baseless.) This weekend, Will reported from Nevada, where he apparently met Sharron Angle, the truly ridiculous Republican extremist running for the U.S. Senate this year. Will has to consider Angle too unstable for federal lawmaking, doesn't he? Alas, no. The conservative columnist was slightly derisive of Angle's campaign organization -- he called it "unready for prime time" -- but was untroubled by the candidate's record of radicalism.
"Injudicious." That's Will's word to describe Angle's record of crazed rhetoric and policy positions. He offered not a word about Angle's speculation about armed insurrection against the U.S. government, her opposition to the separation of church and state, her desire to eliminate most of the federal government, her support for a bizarre prison program developed by the Church of Scientology, her associations with radicals, etc. Jon Chait added that Will "doesn't defend those things, or even mention them." —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
BECK U.... We here at the Washington Monthly take pride in our college guide and rankings, which is why I feel fairly confident that Glenn Beck's "school" will not be featured in any future issues of the magazine -- except maybe as a target of mockery.
Now, in fairness, I should point out that "Beck University" isn't a real college. Rather, for a fee, Beck's minions will be able to access online "courses," which will be posted to Beck's site. Regular folks won't be able to take classes at Beck U, but "Insider Extreme subscribers" -- that's the actual name, not something I made up -- can pay $75 a year and get the kind of lessons students will miss if they rely on accredited schools. "This July," Beck's site tells readers, "while others are relaxing poolside, head back to the classroom -- from the comfort of your own home. That may sound like an oxymoron but Glenn's new academic program is only available online." Of course it is. What's interesting to me about this is not just the silly notion of relying on Beck for an education -- though that's part of it -- but also the fact that this self-described rodeo clown is just a remarkable merchandiser. Remember, between May 2009 to August 2010, Glenn Beck will have published four print books, a photo book, and two audio books. That doesn't include his tours and live shows, nor his paid online site. This from a deranged media personality who reportedly takes in about $18 million a year. Does he really need to exploit his followers so shamelessly? Steve M's recent assessment continues to ring true: "So now we see what Glenn Beck really is: He's basically a televangelist. A huckster. A late-night pitchman selling seminars and book/DVD/audio combo packages that will allegedly help you get rich through flipping real estate. A human-potential-movement cult leader who promises life breakthroughs in exchange for participation in costly 'religious' or 'therapy' programs." —Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
BOEHNER'S BRAND OF 'LEADERSHIP'.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a rather unpleasant stretch last week, with a controversy surrounding his comparison of the financial crisis to "an ant," and scuttlebutt from conservative media figure (and former House colleague) Joe Scarborough that Boehner is lazy. But to my mind, the most important comments were published over the weekend, after Boehner spoke to the Washington Post's Dan Balz. The reporter asked the would-be House Speaker what voters could expect from a Republican-led chamber.
Even for Boehner, this is bizarre. Four months before a critical midterm cycle, the top House Republican can't talk at all about what his party would do with power. Boehner wants to replace the Affordable Care Act, but he won't say with what. Boehner wants to cut spending, but he won't say where or how much or why the GOP should be considered credible on the subject after its recent failures. Boehner has pledged to have "an adult conversation" with the country about entitlements, but has "no idea" what kind of Social Security policy his caucus will pursue. And to top it off with the ultimate cop-out, Boehner concludes that his taxpayer-financed gimmick -- a website in which House Republicans ignore ideas they don't like -- prevents him from sharing his own party's ideas. This may seem like an odd concept to Boehner, but leadership requires those with vision and creativity to step up and point the way forward. For the leading House Republican to not have an agenda, and to wait for an online social-networking game to tell him what to think, is many things, but it sure isn't "leadership." —Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
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. * As Democratic policymakers work on bringing accountability and safeguards to Wall Street, bankers, hedge fund executives, and financial services chief executives drop their campaign contributions to Democrats. * Vice President Biden knows Dems are expected to have a rough cycle, but he nevertheless believes his party will "do a great deal better than anyone gives us credit for. I do not see this grand debacle." * In Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt's (R) Senate campaign is running its first television ad of the general election, it neglects to mention his party affiliation and the fact that he's served in Congress for the last 14 years. * In North Carolina, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows a pretty competitive Senate race, with incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R) leading Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) by five, 38% to 33%. Libertarian Michael Beitler is a credible third-party candidate, with 10% support in the poll. * West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) has said he has no intention of appointing himself to fill the vacancy left by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), but he's under increasing pressure to reconsider. * In Colorado, Senate hopeful Jane Norton (R) doesn't want voters to consider her a lobbyist just because she did lobbying work in the 1990s. * The DNC unveiled another TV ad over the weekend, connecting Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) apology to BP to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) comparing the financial crisis to "an ant." * In Maryland, former Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R), hoping to get his old job back, is running into some campaign trouble because of a scandal surrounding his running mate. * And in Ohio, convicted felon Jim Traficant's congressional comeback effort appears to be over, at least for now. Hoping to secure a spot on the ballot in Ohio's 17th, Traficant reportedly failed to submit the necessary number of valid signatures on his nominating petitions. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)
BP'S PROMISES.... As recently as March, BP was nothing but confident in its ability to respond to the kind of disastrous spill that would begin a month later. How confident? Enough to make some fairly specific promises about the company's capabilities.
You think? The March report, which federal officials should have pushed back on but didn't, insisted that in the event of a major spill, BP had the capacity to skim and remove over 491,000 barrels of oil a day. As of yesterday, those remarkable BP skimming capabilities were averaging less than 900 barrels a day. If my math is right*, that means BP's skimming and removal efforts are operating at less than 0.2% of the promised capacity. The oil giant only exaggerated its abilities by a factor of 500. With an estimated total of about 2 million barrels having already been released into the Gulf of Mexico, BP has captured only 67,143 barrels -- or about 3% of the total.
Yes, and they are wrong. The company line is that it will revisit, "at some point," why its promises were so wrong, but the immediate goal is the ongoing crisis. Fine. But in the meantime, let's keep in mind what these broken promises tell us about BP's credibility on the subject. * Update: It turns out my math wasn't right. I've corrected the percentages, and appreciate the readers who let me know about the error. —Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)
GOP STILL HOPES TO DERAIL KAGAN NOMINATION.... As a rule, when a Senate caucus is going to lose a fight over a judicial nominee, the goal is to lose in the most effective way possible. In the case of a Supreme Court hopeful like Elena Kagan, that would mean the GOP using her nomination to advance the Republican line on the judiciary, rile up the base with attacks on liberals, etc. Given what we saw last week -- Kagan seemed to cruise through Judiciary Committee questions -- it seems unlikely the GOP will be able to capitalize much in this go around. But Roll Call reports today that Senate Republicans seem to actually perceive Kagan as vulnerable.
It's hard to say just how serious Republicans are about this, because it sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking. After all, the military recruiters' argument was proven baseless before the hearings even began, and nothing new and/or damaging emerged during the confirmation hearings. But the charade continues.
This all seems rather pointless, but maybe Republicans will catch a break and hold the final majority voting to confirm to under 67 votes (which is what Justice Sotomayor received). In terms of scheduling, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Kagan a week from today, and the leadership intends to bring her conformation to the floor before Aug. 6. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
WHEN CYNICISM WORKS.... I was watching a local public affairs show the other day when the host, a neutral reporter with no obvious ideological leanings, noted how upset many voters are that "Congress left town last week without extending unemployment benefits." The other panelists on program nodded their heads. Not a word was spoken, however, about who, specifically, was responsible for the developments. Kevin Drum noted a similar situation he saw over the weekend.
Greg Sargent writes about this dynamic fairly often, and it's a persuasive, albeit frustrating, observation. Republicans deliberately create government dysfunction ... which makes voters, who hate the dysfunction, angry ... which leads them to vote for more Republicans since Democrats are the majority party and get blamed when the status quo breaks down. Indeed, this goes further than just public perceptions about gridlock -- the consequences fuel more public outrage. As Josh Marshall noted yesterday, "Republicans block any measures to buoy or resuscitate economy, call sputtering economy evidence of superiority of Republican policies, reap political benefit. Rinse. Restart." When it comes to exploiting public anxieties and frustrations, it's about the most cynical scam imaginable, isn't it? The goal is to get the public to throw up its arms in disgust and think, "To hell with the whole bunch." Once that happens, Republicans are thrilled, creating an incentive for the GOP to do whatever it takes to make Washington even worse. Best of all, there's not a whole lot to be done since, institutionally, we have a system that gives the majority power and gives the minority the ability to stop the majority from exercising that power. Bringing majority-rule back to the Senate would no doubt help, but that's not even on the table. An engaged, informed electorate, coupled with better political reporting from major media outlets, would make a huge difference, but that's nowhere in sight, either. A more moderate, pragmatic Republican Party would transform Washington, but so long as the GOP is rewarded for its extremism, that's a fanciful dream. We're left with a political landscape in which voters punish Democrats for Republicans' actions. —Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)
WHEN STATES CAN'T PAY THEIR BILLS.... Over the holiday weekend, one of the more distressing items I saw was a New York Times piece on Illinois' finances. Its significance to the national economy cannot be overstated. While states like California are notorious for their budget problems, Illinois seems to be in a league of its own, and its problems keep getting worse. At this point, the Land of Lincoln is struggling to pay its bills, can't approve measures to close its deficit, and doesn't know what to do with its underfunded, "spectacularly mismanaged" pension system. The results are genuinely ugly. Schools are laying off teachers and scrapping extra-curricular activities; drug, family and mental health counseling centers have slashed their work forces; pharmacies waiting for state payments are closing; and state colleges and universities have been told to borrow against state payments that might come eventually. In the bigger picture, there are two broad takeaways here. The first is the conflicting priorities of more services and lower taxes.
Illinois is going to have to raise taxes to close the gap, but with Republicans' embracing Norquistism with both arms, Dems are left to either cut social services -- hurting struggling families in the process -- or come up with a ridiculous budget scheme to keep the state going. The second is that the federal government can help the economy by helping states like Illinois.
Republicans and some Blue Dogs have refused to expand state aid, regardless of the consequences. When hundreds of thousands of state workers are unemployed, they should know who to thank. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
GOP LAWYERS FIGHT TO KEEP ANGLE'S PUBLIC VIEWS SECRET.... Within a few days of Sharron Angle's Republican primary victory in Nevada's Senate's race, her campaign website had been yanked offline. As of mid-June, visitors to Angle's official site could donate money to the extremist candidate, but that was literally the only link on the page. Voters wanting to know more about the candidate had to go elsewhere. There was no real mystery here -- in the wake of Angle winning the nomination, it was time to scrub the site, removing content that made the GOP Senate hopeful look nutty. The campaign team did exactly that, taking three weeks to meticulously remove all references to Angle's stated plans to scrap Social Security, abolish the Department of Education, crack down on immigration, expand offshore oil drilling, etc. Sam Stein and Elyse Siegel noted that a review of the old and new Angle campaign sites shows "dramatic, fundamental shifts in her policy platform." Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) campaign believes the public might find Angle's stated, published agenda educational, so it re-published the Republican candidate's original issue positions online for voters to see. In response, Angle's lawyers threatened a lawsuit, demanding that Reid's campaign not show voters what Angle has said she believes.
As Angle's lawyers argued in their cease-and-desist letter, Reid's campaign team was misusing copyrighted materials by re-publishing Angle's own website. Regrettably, Reid's lawyers apparently concluded the argument had merit, and took down the site, directing visitors to a different site mocking Angle's extremism. I can't speak to the copyright issues, but I would have liked to see litigation proceed in a case like this. Have we ever had a case in which a U.S. Senate candidate went to court to keep her own published platform hidden from public view?
WHAT BROOKS CONSIDERS 'REALISM'.... The New York Times' David Brooks devotes his column today to offering President Obama some advice, which he considers "a little economic realism." That's probably not the best description of his economic vision. Brooks doesn't seem especially impressed with "Demand Siders" -- those who believe additional economic stimulus will generate growth and create jobs. In some disappointing anti-intellectualism, Brooks derides these advocates for their "computer models" and "very high I.Q.'s," as if those who've been exactly right about practically every recent economic challenge are just nerds with charts, unworthy of serious consideration. More specifically, Brooks insists, "The Demand Siders don't have a good explanation for the past two years." Sure they do. A housing crash led to a financial crisis, exacerbated by an unregulated Wall Street. Global stimulus efforts helped create a global recovery, which is now threatened by European debt crises and austerity measures that focus on debt reduction instead of growth. The Demand Siders have a perfectly good explanation for the past two years. Brooks added that "it is certainly true that the fiscal spigots have been wide open. The U.S. and most other countries have run up huge, historic deficits." I'm not sure that's true, either. The "fiscal spigots" should have been opened much wider, and while the U.S. deficit is huge, history shows plenty of instances in which it's been much bigger. Brooks thinks he's right in part because the public is confused: "Only 6 percent of Americans believe the last stimulus created jobs, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey." But I care less about what the polls show than what reality shows: the stimulus created millions of jobs and prevented an economic catastrophe. Brooks doesn't have to like it, and the public doesn't have to accept it, but facts are stubborn things. Perhaps most troubling is the column's fear-mongering.
As Dean Baker explained, threats about "national insolvency" from additional stimulus are silly.
That far too many policymakers here and around the world seem to buy into Brooks' vision is more than a little disconcerting. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
DIRTY MEDICINE.... Back when heath care reform was making its Bataan-like march through the legislative process, politicians and pundits spent countless hours parsing the once obscure workings of our health care system. All the major problems with that system were, if not solved, certainly aired. Right? Wrong. Somehow, the health reform debate never focused on "group purchasing organizations," or GPOs. These are companies that serve as middlemen for hospitals in buying supplies -- everything from syringes to heart monitors. A handful of these GPOs control purchasing for roughly 90 percent of the nation's hospitals. In theory, they're supposed to lower health care costs by pooling the buying power of numerous medical facilities to negotiate better prices from manufacturers. But as Mariah Blake explains in the upcoming issue of the Washington Monthly, a little-known loophole exempts GPOs from federal anti-kickback laws. This allows them to collect generous commissions and fees -- in other industries they might be called kickbacks or bribes -- from the very suppliers they're supposed to be haggling with. This arrangement gives large medical device manufacturers extra clout in negotiations, which they use to set prices and terms and shut out their smaller rivals, including innovative companies with potentially lifesaving products. In fact, Blake has uncovered strong evidence that GPOs generally increase rather than lower the price of medical supplies -- the second largest expenditure for our nation's hospitals and clinics and a major contributor to the ballooning cost of health care, which consumes nearly a fifth of our GDP.
July 5, 2010
MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Does the "super skimmer" work in the Gulf? We really don't know yet: "Tests on a supertanker adapted to skim large quantities of oily water from the surface of the Gulf of Mexico are inconclusive because of high seas, ship owner TMT Shipping Offshore said on Monday." * Vice President Biden visits Iraq, tries to kick-start diplomatic talks between Iraqi parties: "Vice President Biden left Iraq on Monday evening after a three-day trip in which he urged Iraqi officials to speed up the formation of the nation's new government, Iraqi officials said." * Gen. David Petraeus formally took command in Afghanistan over the weekend. Delivering remarks at a ceremony in front of NATO headquarters in Kabul, Petraeus insisted "we are in this to win." * Until he changes his mind again, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) seems inclined to let the Senate vote on Wall Street reform. * Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, about 1 million Americans will get health insurance next year who would otherwise have to go without. * When a "ban" on earmarks isn't really a "ban." * The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination a week from tomorrow. * The overlap between the Tea Party "movement" and the Republicans' far-right base is overwhelming. What a suprise. * Dave Carr has a very compelling piece on the recent Dave Weigel affair. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
WHITE HOUSE ECONOMISTS VS. THE WHITE HOUSE POLITICAL TEAM.... The NYT had an item today that noticed in passing that within the White House, President Obama's "political aides have tended to emphasize voter worries about the deficit, while his economic advisers have been urging additional stimulus spending." The Times' Jackie Calmes had a detailed report on this debate over the weekend. I found it more than a little disconcerting.
This isn't good. It's not good at all. I don't doubt that the political team has credible polling data that tells them Americans want to see spending cuts and deficit reduction. The constant Republican rhetoric of the last 17 months, coupled with sluggish growth and inadequate Democratic messaging, has actually convinced much of the country that what's bad for the economy is good, and what's good for the economy is bad. For political advisers anxious to give the public what it wants, the path seems clear. But it's the economists who know what they're talking about here. The stimulus pulled the economy back from the edge of a cataclysmic fall, but more investment is necessary to create the robust growth the nation needs. It seems vaguely unpleasant to acknowledge, but public opinion can occasionally be fickle, uninformed, and confused. The vast majority of Americans want policymakers to focus on economic growth and job creation, but aren't really in a position to know how to make that happen. Many have a viscerally negative reaction to spending and deficits -- at least they do now; the reaction was oddly in check during throughout the Bush/Cheney era -- but don't appreciate the larger consequences. For the WH political team, there's an understandable desire to shape policies to cater to voter demand. But it's wise to think ahead -- if the economy falters badly, it's not as if Obama will impress the public by saying, "Well, we could have improved matters, but instead we listened to the public." If the economy gets better, the political team will adapt and offer new advice based on changed attitudes. If the economy takes a turn for the worse, it doesn't much matter what the political team notices in terms of public attitudes, since a president's fortunes tend to rise and fall based on the health of the economy. According to the NYT piece, Christina Romer, Jared Bernstein, Tim Geithner, and Lawrence Summers all want additional stimulus. David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are "more focused on deficits -- or at least on positioning Mr. Obama to show his concern." The more the president listens to the former, the better. If Obama's public remarks are any indication, he seems to get this, which is one of the reasons he took the right message to the G-20. Ultimately, it may not matter -- President Obama could become the most aggressive advocate of additional stimulus in America, but if the votes aren't there on the Hill, nothing will happen. But doesn't it make more sense for the president to at least fight as hard as possible and take his case to Congress and the public, putting the onus on conservatives for standing in the way of a stronger economy? —Steve Benen 11:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)
PASS THE DAMN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.... Senate Democrats have spent quite a bit of time lately trying to pass extended unemployment benefits, but to no avail -- Senate Republicans and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) refuse to let the chamber vote because, as they see it, the deficit is more important than the economy. All available evidence suggests this is a terrible mistake, not only for the added hardship on struggling families, but also for the economy, that benefits from stimulative jobless aid which is invariably spent. For decades, extended unemployment benefits during difficult economic times, financed through deficit spending, was a political no-brainer that enjoyed bipartisan support. As the GOP moves sharply to the far-right, those days are over. Republican arguments vary, though most simply conclude "deficit = bad," but one approach is especially problematic. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate's second-highest ranking Republican, believes that extended aid for the jobless makes unemployment worse, "continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." Paul Krugman considers whether this makes any sense at all.
Someone really ought to let Jon Kyl and his GOP colleagues know. Unless their goal is to hurt the economy, they'll no doubt want to reverse course and allow the Senate to vote on extended unemployment benefits the moment lawmakers return next week. —Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
ON THE TRAIL WITH KENDRICK MEEK.... On paper, Rep. Kendrick Meek (D), a leading U.S. Senate candidate in Florida, should be in reasonably good electoral shape. He's a fairly popular congressman and law-enforcement officer who enjoys the backing of Democratic giants like former President Bill Clinton. What's more, the Democratic candidate will be in a three-way contest in November, with Republican Marco Rubio and used-to-be-Republican Charlie Crist. It's fairly easy to imagine the winning scenario -- Rubio and Crist split the GOP vote, and Meek, running in a state Barack Obama won by about three points in 2008, comes out on top with support from Florida Dems. At least, that's the scenario the Meek campaign and the DSCC are hoping for. Thus far, the road to the Senate has run into a few roadblocks. While Meek was effectively running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, he's now up against billionaire Jeff Greene, who's been going after the congressman quite aggressively. In the general match-ups, recent polls show Meek struggling badly. I had a chance to chat with Meek a few days ago. We talked at some length about the BP oil spill threatening Florida -- Meek is, not surprisingly, deeply concerned about the environmental and economic impact of the disaster -- but transitioned to the state of the Senate race. On the oil spill as it relates to coastal drilling:
On the importance of drilling in the campaign:
On the state of the primary:
On his low name-recognition statewide:
On whether he'd support institutional reforms in the Senate:
As a political observer, I found some of Meek's answers stronger than others. When I brought up the "enthusiasm gap" between the parties' bases, the congressman talked only about his own institutional endorsements, not the larger trend. When I asked what the Democratic congressional majority might consider in the coming months to improve its odds of staying in power, he wouldn't go into details, adding, "The Congress has done a lot." In general, though, Meek seemed like a confident, capable Senate candidate. I got the impression he's unfazed by his underwhelming poll numbers, and expects be the tortoise that eventually passes the better-known hares. It's obviously easier said than done. As Charlie Crist, running as an independent and moving to the left, stays on top of the polls, there's "evidence that Democratic donors are starting to line up behind" the governor, not Meek. There seems to be a practical concern among institutional Dems in Florida -- if Meek continues to struggle in the multi-candidate race, Crist is seen as the electable, preferable alternative to the right-wing Rubio. Meek has time to improve his numbers, and keep institutional Democrats in his corner, though the primary certainly complicates matters. Talking to him, the congressman sounded convinced he's right where he needs to be. Whether that confidence is warranted will be clear soon enough. —Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)
NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINED -- BARBOUR EDITION.... Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) has been downplaying the seriousness of the BP oil spill disaster for weeks. That seems to be changing. (via Atrios)
Oh, now officials have to be honest with the public. In mid May, as the crisis intensified, Barbour argued that the spill may have a "moderate and even minimal impact." He compared the oil along his shore to a gasoline sheen commonly found around ski boats. By early June, he was comparing the oil to tooth paste, and said the oil on Mississippi's beaches could barely "fill up a milk jug." Barbour appeared on Fox News to blame the media for the "misperception" about the disaster, telling potential visitors, "The coast is clear." Except the coast is, quite literally, anything but clear. And now it seems Barbour's Mississippi isn't prepared, and it's suddenly time to start being "honest with the public." You don't say.
ZAKARIA TALKS UP A 'GRAND BARGAIN'.... Fareed Zakaria, in general, is on firmer ground when he speaks on foreign policy, but on his CNN program yesterday, he took some time to talk about economic stimulus spending. He touched on an idea that comes up from time to time. Zakaria spoke first to Paul Krugman about the economy, then Niall Ferguson, with each guest taking the opposite side of the equation. At the conclusion, the host took a side: "I think that the case for government spending in the short term is pretty strong." "The private sector is simply not hiring yet," Zakaria explained. "Consumers are also being very cautious. You can't motivate either of them any further with the traditional tools that used to be used, lowering interest rates, because interest rates are already close to zero. If the government were to slash spending in this atmosphere, it would probably send the economy into a tailspin." Zakaria added, however, that he considers debt/deficit dangers to be "real," which led him to suggest "a kind of grand bargain." We've heard some of this talk before -- Zakaria recommends a "targeted" stimulus, but couple it "with an announcement from the president of a 10-year plan to tackle the budget deficit." Some of the elements of Zakaria's vision have more merit than others -- he mentioned reductions in entitlement spending, cuts in agriculture subsidies, and a gas tax, among other things -- but the idea is straightforward: trade short-term investment to boost the economy for longer-term deficit reduction. Obviously, the details of such a bargain would make all the differences, but in general, I suspect President Obama would gladly make such a deal with congressional Republicans. Indeed, he'd probably accept such a grand bargain in a heartbeat. Spending increases now for spending decreases in the near-future? Done and done. Which is why it's almost certainly not going to happen. Congressional Republicans not only oppose boosting the economy in the short term (for a variety of reasons), they would likely see a major deal like this one as the kind of thing voters would approve of -- and making voters happy is the last thing GOP lawmakers want to do right now. The goal is to generate as much blind rage towards the status quo as possible -- a bipartisan deal to improve the short-term economy and long-term deficit is the exact opposite of the Republican game-plan. —Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)
STEELE FINDS ONE GOP BACKER (BUT JUST ONE).... As the controversy over RNC Chairman Michael Steele's Afghanistan comments has grown, the volume of criticism from Republican Party figures has become louder. Yesterday, three high-profile GOP senators -- McCain, Graham, and DeMint -- all offered pointed condemnations of Steele, though they stopped short of calling for his ouster, as other party leaders have done. Are there any Republican officials willing to defend their party chairman? As it turns out, there is one -- but only one.
Paul's criticism of the president seems oddly contradictory -- one cannot call for expanding a war and be a "peace candidate" at the same time -- but the more important development here is that Steele has won the backing of the one member in his party who vocally opposes the conflict. Indeed, Paul's statement went on to praise Steele, adding that the beleaguered RNC chief gives Americans "hope as he speaks truth about this war." It's the kind of support Steele probably doesn't want. Ron Paul is seen in most Republican circles as something of a nut, and his opposition to both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq puts him sharply at odds with the GOP mainstream (you'll recall that he was routinely booed during the 2008 presidential campaign). Paul loved what Steele had to say in Connecticut on Thursday, but Steele himself has now completely backed away from his own remarks. In other words, Paul agrees with Steele more than Steele does. So, will Steele hang on, surviving yet another self-inflicted wound? We'll likely have a better sense over the next couple of days, but the RNC chairman probably likes his chances at this point -- the more time passes, the easier it is to survive. At this point, only one Republican member of Congress has called for his ouster, and no RNC members have. The tide may yet turn again, but for now, Steele may persevere yet again. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
July 4, 2010
THE WRONG ANSWER TO THE WRONG QUESTION.... As a rule the weekly addresses offered by President Obama and a Republican official aren't especially important. But yesterday's address from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) was one of the weekend's more noteworthy developments. This week offered new evidence that our fragile economic recovery is on very shaky ground. The monthly job totals from June were deeply disappointing. The real estate market continues to struggle badly. Reports on construction spending and manufacturing activity both disappointed. It wasn't surprising, then, that the president's weekly address talked about the economy, with Obama trying to highlight some more encouraging developments, and talking up initiatives that will generate some new jobs. But that's why Chambliss' GOP response is so striking. His articulation of the Republican message of the week sent an unmistakable signal about exactly what the minority party considers important right now.
Chambliss went on (and on) from there -- talking up the size of the debt, the debt burden per person, the debt growth per day, the debt as a proportion of every federal dollar spent, the expected rate of growth of the debt, interest on the debt, foreign financing of the debt, etc. The key to America's continued greatness, Chambliss concluded, is to "secure America's fiscal future." So, literally just one day after the release of the worst monthly jobs report since October, and with a genuine employment crisis undermining the economy, the official Republican message of the week is to talk about the debt -- a debt, by the way, that grew by $5 trillion during the Bush/Cheney era because of breathtaking Republican recklessness. How many times did Chambliss mention the word "jobs"? Literally none. How many references were there to "unemployment"? Zero. What did Chambliss offer in terms of ideas to improve the economy? There weren't any -- he didn't talk about growing the economy at all. The most important issue on the minds of Americans went completely ignored, because the GOP has decided a different issue matters more than the economy. There are few things more important in American politics right now than the realization that Republican lawmakers have no intention of even trying to create jobs. As Chambliss helped demonstrate, by their own admission, Republicans believe strengthening the recovery isn't the goal; lowering the deficit they created is the goal. Republicans aren't just offering the wrong answer; they're asking the wrong question. —Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)
MCCAIN, DEMINT ADD TO STEELE'S TROUBLES.... If RNC Chairman Michael Steele was hoping Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would make the controversy over his Afghanistan remarks less problematic, the beleaguered party chief was likely disappointed this morning.
Around the same time, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an influential far-right senator, told "Fox News Sunday" that Steele needs to "apologize to our military" for his "unacceptable" and "careless" comments. As for whether the RNC chief should be removed, DeMint added, "[W]hether he resigns is up to people other than me, but I need to see him focused on this November's election." An RNC spokesperson told CNN yesterday that Steele "has gotten strong support from Republican leaders." I'm finding that very hard to believe. —Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
PUTTING OIL INDUSTRY SUBSIDIES ON THE TABLE.... Under the circumstances, it's tempting to think Congress wouldn't have too much trouble ending breaks for the oil industry -- energy giants have enjoyed remarkable generosity for quite a while.
The Center for American Progress' Sima J. Gandhi told the NYT, "We're giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway. That's not an incentive; that's a giveaway." The report added, however, "Despite the public anger at the gulf spill, it is far from certain that Congress will eliminate the tax breaks." It didn't say which party will be pushing to protect the oil industry, but it's not a stretch to suspect Republicans will play their traditional role. —Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
DEFINING 'MAVERICK' DOWN.... The New York Times Magazine's profile on Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) already caused a bit of stir this week, when the piece showed him critical of the right-wing Tea Party "movement." (He said it's "unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country," an assessment I agree with.) But that wasn't really the point of the article. Rather, Robert Draper's profile on Graham is about the senator becoming "this year's maverick." In an era of hyper-partisanship and Republican intransigence, the South Carolinian, we're told, at least has a strong enough sense of his responsibilities that he's willing to talk to Democrats about solving problems.
The article goes on to quote White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel saying Graham is "willing to work on more things than the others." Emanuel added, "Lindsey, to his credit, has a small-government vision that's out of fashion with his party, which stands for no government... He's one of the last big voices to give that vision intellectual energy." It all sounds quite nice. Indeed, the Times article isn't wrong -- Graham has invested quite a bit of time talking to the White House, trying to work with people he disagrees with about issues he cares about. Given what we've seen of late from congressional Republicans, that counts for something. But re-reading the piece this morning, I noticed something missing -- any actual examples of Graham striking a deal with Democrats and getting something, anything, done. He's been willing to engage Dems in discussion, and that's more than anyone can say about most GOP lawmakers. But when it comes to successful follow-through -- when it comes to being a problem-solving "maverick," rather than looking like one -- Graham comes up short. He was willing to work with Democrats on immigration policy, before Graham walked away and announced he'd oppose his own compromise. He was willing to work with Democrats on energy policy, but again, Graham walked away and announced he'd oppose his own compromise. Look back over the key votes of the last 17 months -- economic recovery, health care, student loans, Wall Street reform, Lily Ledbetter -- and you'll notice that Graham not only voted with his far-right party in every instance, he even supported filibusters to prevent the Senate from voting at all. Ultimately, the only meaningful difference between Graham and knee-jerk partisans who say "no" to everything Democrats try to do is that Graham is willing to talk to Dems -- and then say "no" to everything Democrats try to do. If that qualifies for "maverick" status, the political world is setting the bar awfully low. Postscript: For more background on Graham's "perilous bipartisanship," the Monthly had a great cover-story on this in 2005. —Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)
STEELE STILL SCRAMBLING.... As of late Friday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was facing plenty of calls for his resignation, but none of his detractors was a current office-holder. For the beleaguered party chief to hold on, he'd need Republican lawmakers and RNC members to keep their powder dry. Unfortunately for Steele, yesterday offered little encouragement.
Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-Calif.), a combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, issued a statement describing Steele's remarks on the war as "irresponsible," a "disservice to our military men and women," and reflecting" an unfortunate level of ignorance on such a significant national security issue." Hunter's rebuke, however, did not include a call for Steele's ouster. There's little doubt that Steele knows he has a problem, and is once again scrambling to keep his job. CNN reported that the party chief "spent Saturday calling GOP lawmakers and elected party officials to explain his controversial remarks on Afghanistan and to try to build support against calls for his resignation." An RNC spokesperson told the network that Steele "has gotten strong support from Republican leaders." There's no public evidence that's true -- the number of party leaders offering support for Steele since the controversy broke on Friday morning is still zero. It leads to a question party officials have had to consider before: are Republicans better off a) forcing their party chairman out four months before critical midterm elections, while dealing with the internal turmoil; or b) keeping Steele, begging him not to be a distraction, and overcoming his incompetence? —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
July 3, 2010
WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW CAN HURT THEM.... Evidence of an "enthusiasm gap" between Democratic and Republican voters is hardly new, though it may prove to be one of the year's most important campaign dynamics. Recently, the trend became even more evident. Gallup's latest poll measuring partisan enthusiasm not only showed Republicans with a sizable advantage, but found that excitement among GOP voters has reached a level with no modern precedent. This week's report from the Pew Research Center found a similar partisan landscape: "Fully 56 percent of Republican voters say they are more enthusiastic about voting this year than in previous elections -- the highest percentage of GOP voters expressing increased enthusiasm about voting in midterms dating back to 1994.... The Republican Party now holds about the same advantage in enthusiasm among its party's voters that the Democratic Party held in June 2006 and the GOP had late in the 1994 campaign." And 1994 proved to be a rather consequential year, as I recall. But to me, that wasn't the most interesting part. This was. (via Suzy Khimm)
Wait, wait, wait. Democratic voters aren't nervous? This is, of course, just one poll, and I haven't seen other outlets asking the same question, so it's hard to say with certainty just how widespread these attitudes really are. But the Pew Research Center is a fairly reliable outlet, and if its reporting on this is accurate, it's really important. Democratic candidates excelled in 2006, and had another terrific cycle in 2008. It's certainly possible that Pew's data is correct -- Democratic voters just don't realize, at least not yet, that the party's gains can entirely disappear this November, giving enormous power to an increasingly radicalized Republican Party. If less than a fifth of Democratic voters expect Dems to do worse in 2010 than in recent elections, the party has no choice but to make the stakes clear. To put it mildly, there's a very plausible chance the Democrats will lose their House majority; control of the Senate is in play; and there's no shortage of important gubernatorial races and ballot initiatives. There's also the consequential matter of post-Census redistricting -- the more Republicans are elected to state legislatures, the more lines will be redrawn to help GOP congressional candidates. Republican voters, according to multiple polls, are practically counting the days until November, almost desperate to elect far-right candidates. If rank-and-file Dems seriously believe their party is positioned to do well -- indeed, if nearly a third of these Dems expect the party's candidates to do better than usual -- they're living in a fantasy world. The awakening next January will likely be a rude one -- intractable gridlock, endless and pointless investigations, and a progressive policy agenda brought to an immediate halt. Hell, presidential impeachment might even find itself on the table. This expectations problem is not lost on party leaders.
That sounds about right. If Democratic voters realize that a radicalized GOP is poised to make significant gains in November, Dems are more likely to show up to prevent that from happening. The combination of Democratic successes -- breakthrough legislation on health care, student loans, Wall Street safeguards, etc. -- and Republican hysteria seems like a capable antidote to the enthusiasm gap. But that means the party has quite a bit of educating to do over the next four months, because if Pew's research is correct, the Democratic rank-and-file has no idea how devastating the elections might be. —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (71)
IF IT'S SUNDAY, IT'S JOHN MCCAIN DAY.... And to think the Sunday shows were doing so well. Bookers went the entire month of May without having Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on at all. It was tempting to think maybe the Sunday shows had begun to realize that their near-obsession with the failed presidential candidate was a bad idea. It turns out, they just can't quit him. Last week, McCain was the featured guest on NBC's "Meet the Press," and tomorrow, it's ABC's turn.
For the record, the all-caps, italicized "exclusive" was in the original; it wasn't emphasized by me. (Though, as long as we're on the subject, if McCain appears on every show all the time, I'm not sure how important the "exclusive" label really is.) For those keeping score -- and you know I am -- this will be McCain's 23rd appearance on a Sunday morning talk show since President Obama's inauguration. That's an average of more than 1.3 appearances a month, every month -- more than any other public official in the country. Since the president took office 17 months ago, McCain has been on CNN's "State of the Union" four times (1.10.10, 10.11.09, 8.2.09, and 2.15.09), CBS's "Face the Nation" five times (1.24.10, 10.25.09, 8.30.09, 4.26.09, and 2.8.09), "Fox News Sunday" five times (4.18.10, 12.20.09, 7.2.09, 3.8.09, and 1.25.09), and NBC's "Meet the Press" five times (6.27.10, 2.28.10, 12.6.09, 7.12.09, and 3.29.09). His appearance on ABC's "This Week" tomorrow will be his fourth since Obama's inauguration (7.4.10, 9.27.09, 8.23.09, and 5.10.09). In fairness, "This Week" has shown slightly more restraint than its competitors, though four appearances is still pretty silly. For that matter, it's also fair to note that tomorrow will be slightly different since McCain is actually in Afghanistan. That said, it's worth emphasizing that McCain has never demonstrated any meaningful understanding of the U.S policy in Afghanistan, and has actually been routinely confused about relevant details. McCain lost a presidential election; he's not in the GOP leadership; he's not especially influential with anyone; he's not playing an active role in shaping any legislation; and he doesn't appear to have any expertise in any area of public policy. The Sunday shows seem to book him out of habit. It remains farcical. Post Script: I'd just add, by the way, that while McCain does "This Week" from Afghanistan, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will be appear on "Face the Nation" from Afghanistan, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will appear on "Fox News Sunday" from Afghanistan. Sigh. —Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a story we've been following out of Liberty University's theological seminary, which was founded by the late radical televangelist Jerry Falwell. The seminary had found an effective and charismatic president, Ergun Caner, who'd become something of a star in fundamentalist circles. Part of Caner's success is a result of his personal backstory -- he claims to have been born in Turkey to a devout Sunni Muslim family, which made him a "jihadist." That Caner, an effective salesman, converted to evangelical Christianity gave him an interesting perspective. That he was able to present himself as both a Christian leader and an expert on Islam and terrorism made him a sought-after speaker on the religious right circuit. But as it turns out, Ergun Caner has a Mark Kirk-like problem -- Caner's story was largely made up, and among other things, he was never "trained in Islamic jihad," as he's claimed. This week, the revelations cost him his job.
Even in religious right circles, bearing false witness will occasionally come with consequences. Also from the God Machine this week: * The U.S. Supreme Court declined this week to hear a case involving the Vatican's claims of immunity in cases stemming from the church's sexual abuse of children. The outcome allows a pending lawsuit to proceed, though Vatican attorneys intends to argue at the district court that the church cannot be held responsible for the actions of a Roman Catholic priest accused of assaulting children. Word from the high court was part of "seven days that shook the Vatican." (thanks to D.J. for the heads-up) * TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University is facing severe economic hardship, prompting Robertson to bailout the school with money from the Christian Broadcasting Network. (thanks to tveblen for the tip) * Those who enjoy debating the existence of God will be pleased to know... there's an app for that. * And on a related note, "Atheists Don't Have No Songs" -- that is, until now. —Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
A SORRY SET OF EXCUSES.... In his speech on immigration reform this week, President Obama not only made the case for a comprehensive solution, he called out Republicans who used to support the same policy, but who balk now. In 2007, Obama noted, a bipartisan package was in place, but came up short. "And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support," the president said. He added, "I'm ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem." The Washington Post followed up with many of those Republicans to see why they supported the comprehensive plan then, but refuse to consider a largely identical proposal now.
Bennett's excuse is common, but misguided -- many on the right were saying the same thing in 2007, and he knew better at the time. As Tom Barry, director of the Transborder Project at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., recently explained, this border-first tack is a sham used to kill necessary legislation. "No matter how much enforcement you have, there will always be people coming through" the border, he said. "Since that is true, opponents to immigration reform will always be able to say the border is still not secure ... and therefore we cannot pass immigration reform." But Graham's excuse is especially amusing. We can't work on immigration because we have to work on Wall Street reform? Well, the Wall Street reform bill is done, and Graham is fighting to prevent the Senate from even voting on the legislation. What kind of rationalization is that? The true Republican response -- they don't want to upset the GOP base, and they refuse to give Obama another legislative victory -- is impolitic, but I'd still rather hear honesty than this sorry set of excuses. —Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
GOHMERT PRESSES HIS CASE ON TERRORIST BABIES.... Remember Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and his fears about terrorist babies? He's now arguing to have some "proof" to bolster his case. Last week, Gohmert made his case on the House floor, insisting that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution leaves us vulnerable. Since the measure says, in effect, that if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born American, Gohmert thinks pregnant terrorists will come to U.S. soil, have babies who'll be American citizens, and "20, 30 years down the road," these home-grown terrorists can "help destroy our way of life." Gohmert claimed to have talked to "a retired FBI agent" who told him national security officials believe "terrorist cells overseas" have "figured out how to game our system." We all had a good laugh at Gohmert's expense last week, but the right-wing lawmaker is still pressing his case. Now, instead of relying on an unnamed "retired FBI agent," Gohmert is citing a conversation he had with a "lady on the plane." Here he is, making his case on the Fox Business Channel on Thursday:
Well, if a perpetually foolish member of Congress had a conversation with a "lady on the plane" last year, I'm ready to pass a constitutional amendment; how about you? As a substantive matter, Gohmert's imaginary scenario is pretty farfetched. As Andrea Nill explained, "[S]ince 9/11, travelers from most parts of the world who want to come to the U.S. on a tourist visa have to undergo a rigorous process just to obtain permission to enter the U.S. They must provide evidence which shows the purpose of the trip, submit fingerprints and photographs, and undergo an interview by a visa officer at the US Embassy. The requirements for anyone seeking to obtain a green card, which include a criminal background check, are even more stringent." Moreover, there's just no credible evidence that terrorists are using birthright-citizenship as part of attack plots scheduled for the year 2035. Not even a little. Gohmert opposes immigration, so he's making up a ridiculous scenario to scare people into doing what he wants to do anyway. That said, given the right's interest in this, it's all but certain Congress will debate this in earnest in 2011 if Republicans retake the majority. —Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
'INJECTING DEMAND INTO THE ECONOMY' IS A GOOD IDEA.... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke to reporters on Thursday, and stressed the importance of extended unemployment insurance. It's not only vital to offering some relief to the jobless, the Speaker said, but also serve as "one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy." Unemployment benefits are "spent quickly" and that money "injects demand into the economy," she explained, making the investment "job creating." The right seemed to find 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. The intensity of the right's response is matched only by how terribly wrong conservatives are.
Even conservatives should be able to understand this. The Congressional Budget Office has documented that aid to the unemployed is one of the highest-scoring stimulus policies (pdf) for exactly the reasons Pelosi explained. In terms of fiscal bang for the buck, Zandi's analysis found that the single most stimulative investments the government can make comes from a temporary increase in food stamps -- but extended unemployment benefits were a close second. (Both perform far better than tax cuts.) It seems those with even "half a brain" should appreciate the concept. The point of any stimulus exercise is to inject money into the system. If the government provides a benefit to an individual, and he or she sticks the money into a savings account, that's not stimulative. But when the jobless receive benefits, they tend to spend it all quite quickly -- they have no choice; they're struggling to get by. That Republicans and Ben Nelson think the deficit is more important than this is misguided. That media conservatives find this incomprehensible is bizarre. —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
CAN STEELE HANG ON (AGAIN)?.... Since becoming chairman of the Republican National Committee early last year, Michael Steele's entire tenure has been marked by a series of self-inflicted wounds. The man's propensity for humiliating gaffes and bizarre decisions has made him arguably the highest-profile RNC chief ever -- but not in a good way. Yesterday's controversy over his remarks on the war in Afghanistan challenged Steele in a new way, and as of this morning, it's unclear just how strong his hold on the chairmanship really is. Over the course of the afternoon, a reasonably influential group of Republicans called on Steele to resign -- it started with Bill Kristol, who was soon followed by Erick Erickson and former South Carolina GOP chair and Steele rival Katon Dawson. Last night, Liz Cheney joined the chorus. But you'll notice that this group doesn't include any Republicans in positions of authority. Indeed, RNC members seemed inclined not to say much of anything yesterday.
For Steele, that's a good sign. He'd no doubt prefer to hear party officials sticking up for him, but under the circumstances, silence is about the best he can hope for. The timing of the mess ended up cutting both ways for the RNC chairman. On the one hand, the party hoped to spend the day talking about the disheartening monthly job numbers, and Steele's latest screw-up made that largely impossible. The controversy stepped all over the party's planned offensive, making Republicans even more frustrated and making Steele that much less popular with his party. On the other hand, as Brian Beutler noted, Steele benefited from the fact that "the footage surfaced on a Friday before a holiday weekend with many of Washington's biggest newsmakers out of town or unavailable for comment." As a practical matter, this helped Steele survive the day. He's not out of the woods yet -- pay particular attention to what GOP lawmakers say on the Sunday shows tomorrow -- but to the delight of Democrats, Steele has managed to hang on this long, and he might manage to survive this, too. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
July 2, 2010
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Not an easy call: "BP and Obama administration officials are nearing a major decision as they look ahead toward what they hope will be the gulf oil spill endgame: whether to change the cap that is currently capturing a significant amount of oil." (Click the link to see the pros and cons) * Afghanistan: "Six militants armed with suicide bombs stormed the compound of an American contractor working for the United States Agency for International Development in the northern city of Kunduz on Friday, killing at least four people in an assault that left all the attackers dead, according to Afghan officials." * Several Republican senators announced their opposition to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan today, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), though none expressed a willingness to filibuster. * The fate of Wall Street reform became more promising late yesterday when Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who opposed the measure in May, announced her support for the bill. * Seems like a great, overdue idea: "President Obama on Friday will announce 66 new broadband grants and loans totaling $795 million, part of the administration's continued rollout of Recovery Act grants meant to expand high-speed Internet connections across the country." * House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes it's time for the Senate to return to majority-rule, calling the filibuster "the 60-vote stranglehold on the future." She's absolutely right. * Climate scientist Michael E. Mann has been exonerated, more than once, in the trumped up "Climategate" nonsense cooked up by global warming deniers. * GOP Senate hopeful Rand Paul no longer backs an "underground electric immigration fence," which no one could explain or understand anyway. Paul's campaign called it an error from an aide writing for the website. * The House ethics committee dismissed allegations against Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) yesterday, following a seven-month review. * Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) should probably try to remember he opposed the Lily Ledbetter Act. * Effective yesterday, the terms for student loans just got a little better. It's the result of the major overhaul approved by Democrats in March. * The only people stranger than Glenn Beck? Glenn Beck's guests. * And this July 4, take a moment to realize that about a fourth of the population (26%) does not realize who we declared our independence from in 1776. Among the wrong countries mentioned by poll respondents were France, China, Japan, Mexico, and Spain. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)
BUY THAT SENATOR A NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION.... I've noticed, from time to time, that Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) seems to be a little slow on the uptake. As the New York Times' Gail Collins noted this week, after the senator tried to talk about Wall Street reform, and demonstrated no meaningful understanding of what he was saying, she "began to suspect that Massachusetts's junior senator is not a deep thinker." But yesterday offered a classic example of the problem with Brown. Matt Corley notes that the senator appeared on a right-wing Massachusetts radio show, complaining about President Obama's follow-through.
There might be a reasonable point in here somewhere, if a) Brown knew what he was saying; and b) wasn't proven wrong by reality. Ironically, just as Brown was complaining about Obama not following through on sanctions on Iran, the president was hosting a bill-signing ceremony in the White House -- where Obama imposed tough new sanctions on Iran. Some of Brown's Republican colleagues were even there for the event. This is on top of the Obama administration's successful efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran through the United Nations. So, when Scott Brown uses this as an example of the president and his team "not making decisions," that doesn't make any sense. When he says this is evidence of Obama and administration officials failing to "follow through," that's just as absurd. I guess what annoys me most about Scott Brown is that I feel as though I know people just like him -- in the neighborhood, in the family, etc. These are the kind of folks who seem interested in public affairs, and feel like they're supposed to have opinions on important developments, but never quite get around to paying attention to the news or learning anything substantive about the subjects they claim to care about. In my heart of hearts, I don't think Brown is lying. I rather doubt he appeared on that radio show yesterday, hoping to deliberately deceive listeners about the sanctions on Iran the president was just signing into law. The problem is that Brown doesn't seem to keep up on current events, but likes to pretend he does. That's not a crime; a lot of people do this. But a lot of people aren't U.S. senators. As a result, this guy ends up saying demonstrably ridiculous things about the stimulus, financial regulatory reform, health care reform, economic policy, and energy policy, among other things. Looking back, Brown probably didn't expect to win his Senate race, and may not have felt it necessary to learn about these issues. But play time is over. He's a senator now. Now would be a good time to ... I don't know ... start reading a daily newspaper or something. —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
HAS STEELE FINALLY GONE TOO FAR FOR THE GOP?.... RNC Chairman Michael Steele has plenty of experience with humiliating mistakes. I was tempted to put together some links with some of his "greatest hits," but quickly discovered there are so many from just the last 17 months, it would have taken me the rest of the day. So as the controversy builds over Steele's remarks on the war in Afghanistan, it's not as if the RNC chief is on unfamiliar ground -- he's faced pressure like this before. Given the frequency with which Steele embarrasses himself, there's very likely a folder in the RNC communications department labeled, "Game plan for the next time the Chairman screws up." But in the case of criticizing the war in Afghanistan, the game plan might need some revising. RNC spokesperson Doug Heye tried to help Steele soon after the story started breaking, but the "clarification" didn't make a lick of sense, and seemed oddly detached from what the party leader actually said. Demonstrating just how serious a situation this is for Steele, the RNC chairman issued another statement this afternoon.
This might be more persuasive if, just yesterday, Steele hadn't told a room full of Republicans that he believes something very different. Indeed, Steele's message yesterday was pretty much the opposite of the sentiment in this attempted walk-back. Also note, Steele didn't apologize in his statement, or even express regret. What arguably matters most now is the limits of tolerance for Steele within the Republican Party. Right now, the landscape is unclear -- Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson have called for his ouster, and a GOP operative told Brian Beutler. "This is the height of stupidity and epitomizes the problem that is Michael Steele." But, at least for now, no members of Congress have called on Steele to resign, and RNC members haven't weighed in. I've expected Steele's ouster before, only to be proven wrong, so I'll avoid any predictions on this one. I will say, however, that the RNC chairman has never faced the wrath of the pro-war/neo-con contingent of the party before, and if that doesn't make him nervous, it should. —Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
WHEN THE SHOE GOES ON THE OTHER FOOT -- BUT IT DOESN'T FIT.... It's not at all surprising that the Democratic National Committee is pouncing on RNC Chairman Michael Steele's bizarre remarks on the war in Afghanistan. It is surprising how far the DNC is willing to go with its message. About two hours ago, the DNC issued a statement arguing that Steele is "betting against our troops" and "rooting for failure" in Afghanistan -- and that was just the headline. It went on to say that Steele's apparent opposition to the war suggests the RNC chairman is prepared to "walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job." The statement added that it's "unconscionable" for Steele to "undermine the morale of our troops," concluding that Steele "would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences." Greg Sargent responded to this with a very compelling take, arguing that this kind of rhetoric comes from "Karl Rove's playbook."
Greg's right. I don't doubt that the urge at the DNC to give the RNC a taste of its own medicine is pretty intense, but when DNC messages about a war in 2010 are effectively identical to RNC messages about a war in 2004, there's a problem. Part of me sympathizes with DNC staffers reading Greg's post and thinking, "We just can't win. Everyone tells us to play rough and be just as vicious as the RNC, but when we do, we're criticized by the left and right." I get that, and I know why it seems unfair. For that matter, I haven't forgotten the Bush/Cheney years, and the disgusting rhetoric Republicans used to attack any American who voiced disagreement over the war(s). Dissent was equated with disloyalty. Words like "treason," "traitor," and "fifth columnists," weren't just thrown around casually, they were literally a daily part of the public discourse. But Republicans were wrong at the time, and such tactics are still wrong now. If the DNC wants to exploit Steele's remarkable comments for all their worth, that's more than fair. But once the DNC starts equating opposition to the war with "rooting for failure" and "undermining the morale of our troops," the party is reading from the wrong script. —Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
WHAT 'A GREAT DEAL OF WORK' MIGHT INCLUDE.... Kevin Drum notes what the rest of the year on Capitol Hill could look like, "if Democrats had their act together a little better."
Agreed. I love the vision -- lining up a series of votes on what could be labeled the "Democratic Jobs Agenda," launching a genuine debate over addressing the economy over the deficit, forcing Republicans to repeatedly vote against meaningful jobs measures shortly before the election, etc. -- but I have no reason to hope this is realistic. The first problem is the one Kevin mentioned -- there are just too many hand-wringing conservative Dems who've bought into the rhetoric of those who created this mess in the first place. It starts with Ben Nelson, but it continues with a large Blue Dog caucus in the House. The party can't seriously pursue the "Democratic Jobs Agenda" when sizable numbers in the caucuses say they want to cut spending and focus on deficit reduction because some poll said it was a good idea. But I think there's another problem, and it was evident in President Obama's remarks this morning responding to the jobs report. The president, not surprisingly, emphasized the positives and assured the country that we're "headed in the right direction." This rhetoric is to be expected -- Obama wants not only to try to bolster public confidence, but also to position his administration to receive credit for having rescued the economy from a catastrophic collapse. And while the evidence clearly points to Obama deserving that credit, the rhetorical problem is probably obvious -- the White House can't tout the stimulus successes and generate a sense of urgency for additional stimulus at the same time. Or put another way, it's tough to say "we solved the problem" and "the problem is getting worse" simultaneously. But the result is discouraging, to put it mildly. As the economy slows, and the risk of a downturn becomes more acute, it's incumbent on the president to call on Congress to act -- lawmakers sure as hell won't do this on their own -- and to sell the public on an ambitious response. It's rhetorically challenging, but almost certainly necessary. My recommended pitch: Republican started this devastating fire, and the Democrats' Recovery Act put it out. The next step is rebuilding on the ashes, not waiting for simmering embers to start burning again. Or maybe: Republicans drove our car into a ditch, and the Dems' Recovery Act pulled it out. It's time to get the car moving again, not let it slide backwards. The president said this morning, "[W]e still have a great deal of work to do to repair the economy and get the American people back to work." I couldn't agree more. But what might that "great deal of work" include? —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)
BREWER WARNS OF IMMIGRANTS AND 'BEHEADINGS'.... Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) continues to try to defend her anti-immigrant policies, and isn't above using shameless demagoguery to scare people into agreeing with her.
Brewer didn't just slip up; she seems to seriously believe immigrants who've entered the U.S. illegally are engaged in "beheadings." Offered a chance to walk it back on a local public affairs show this week, Brewer insisted that there have been "bodies in the desert ... that have been beheaded." When told that media research could find no such incidents, the governor didn't care. Eventually, a spokesperson for Brewer said that the Arizona governor may not have been referring to incidents in Arizona, but could have meant illegal immigrants beheading people in other states. First, Brewer was clearly talking about Arizona. Second, there aren't reports of beheading in other border states, either. Third, this is probably the most unpersuasive spin I've heard since the RNC spokesperson tried to explain Michael Steele rejecting the RNC's line on Afghanistan. There's no great mystery here. For Republicans like Jan Brewer, the goal is to literally terrify the American public. In this case, that means connecting illegal immigration to images Americans have seen of terrorists beheading the innocent, and hoping people are confused enough to miss the distinction between a Mexican worker, hoping to provide for his/her family, and members of al Qaeda. But trying to connect crime to immigration problems is a losing proposition. —Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)
STEELE'S INTERPRETER TRIES TO CLARIFY.... We talked earlier about RNC Chairman Michael Steele, and his bizarre criticism of the U.S. policy in Afghanistan, which puts him at odds with his own party. It's only fair, then, that I note that RNC spokesperson Doug Heye has issued a statement trying to explain what Steele was trying to say.
Listening to Steele, and then reading Heye, it's hard not to notice that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. (And given Republicans voting against funding the troops, Heye's conclusion seems rather ironic.) Perhaps we're going about this the wrong way. Here are some questions for Heye to consider: * Steele said the war in Afghanistan is "of Obama's choosing." In light of reality, and the fact that the war began nearly nine years ago, what does that mean? * Steele said the war in Afghanistan "was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." Given the events since 2001, what does that mean? * Steele said he considers it a mistake to "engage in a land war in Afghanistan." Does that mean he supports withdrawal? When did he reach this conclusion? Why has Steele previously suggested the exact opposite? Does he believe all of the members of his party who believe the opposite are misguided? * Steele said there are "ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing U.S. troops." Can the RNC name some of the alternatives Republicans would support? For what it's worth, the beleaguered, humiliated RNC chairman seems to have created yet another controversy for himself with his comments. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, an extremely influential voice in Republican Party politics, published an item online less than an hour ago, calling on Steele to resign. Kristol said the party leader's remarks are "more than an embarrassment"; they're "an affront, both to the honor of the Republican party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting to accomplish the mission they've been asked to take on by our elected leaders." —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 generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Despite the humiliating scandal surrounding borderline-pathological lies about his background, Mark Kirk's Republican Senate campaign in Illinois is raking in huge money -- $2.3 million in the second quarter. * Is Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle a "Birther"? The Republican extremist would apparently prefer not to talk about her views on the subject. * In Florida's increasingly-heated Republican gubernatorial primary, state Attorney General Bill McCollum and disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott are fighting over who hates gay people more. * It's Rasmussen, so take the results with a grain of salt, but the pollster shows former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R) leading Ohio's Senate race, up by four over Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D), 43% to 39%. * Right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul, the Republican Senate hopeful in Kentucky, told supporters this week that the country is approaching "a day of reckoning." I'm not sure what he means by that, but given Paul's radicalism, it's not encouraging. * Speaking of extremists seeking statewide office, Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer (R) hates government spending, but he'll accept public financing for his campaign. * New York Gov. David Paterson (D), after a rough partial-term in office, has said he'll never run for public office again. * And Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) isn't up for re-election until 2012, but he said yesterday he intends to seek another term. No word yet on a possible primary challenge. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
A BIG HINT.... The New York Times' David Leonhardt considers the latest job numbers and makes a sound observation.
Right. There's been something of a debate among policymakers about whether the economic recovery is strong enough to be self-sustaining. The stimulus has been carrying the economy for more than a year, and additional help may no longer be needed. Except, we're getting big, bright, unmistakable answers to these questions. For those of you who emailed this morning to argue that the jobs report wasn't that bad, I hear you. May's report was exaggerated in one direction by the addition of Census jobs, and June's report was exaggerated in the other direction by the Census cutting back. If the key to sustained growth is private-sector hiring, June's totals were about double what we saw in May, and for the first six months of 2010, there have been about 600,000 private-sector jobs created -- the best six-month span in quite a while. All of this is true. But no sane person should consider the employment crisis -- and it is an employment crisis -- and think, "Yep, everything's fine. Let's stop worrying about the economy and start worrying about the deficit." Obviously, the opposite is true. Policymakers have the ability to make things better; they just have to muster the political will to address the problem. But they won't, in part because lawmakers are convinced voters will punish policymakers who prioritize the economy over the deficit, and in part because Republicans broke the Senate. A new jobs bill could probably pass Congress in one day, but the GOP won't let legislation get up-or-down votes anymore. Hell, we can't even pass extended unemployment benefits -- actual job creation efforts are practically out of the question. Ezra Klein added this morning, "The fact that things are getting better most months, though worse in some months, obscures both how bad the situation is and how rapid our improvement has to be to really make a dent in it. But in the Senate, Republicans and Ben Nelson are objecting to using emergency legislative powers to pass further unemployment benefits, and their seems to be no appetite to try to intervene in this crisis in any further way." In some instances, we don't see a crisis coming, and are caught off guard. In other instances, we see the crisis coming, but aren't sure how to respond. In this instance, the problem and solution are pretty obvious, but we lack the ability and will to act. —Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
RNC'S STEELE REJECTS REPUBLICAN LINE ON AFGHANISTAN.... Republican Party officials have fought the Obama administration vehemently on every area of domestic and foreign policy with one exception -- the war in Afghanistan. From congressional Republicans to Fox News to Kristol and the Cheneys, Obama is wrong about literally everything, except his Afghanistan policy. So it was startling, to say the least, to see this new video that's making the rounds this morning, in which Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele stakes out a position on the war that puts him entirely at odds with the entirety of his political party. Steele spoke a fundraiser yesterday in Noank, Connecticut, and was heard criticizing the president's war policy with inexplicable remarks. The audio is a little tough to hear at times, but by my ear, Steele is heard saying, "Keep in mind, again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. It was one of those areas of the total board of foreign policy ... that we would be in the background sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should in Afghanistan. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed, and there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing U.S. troops." What in the world is Steele talking about? At first blush, it's tempting to think this puts Steele to the left of even many congressional Democrats, but after listening the clip a few times, it seems Steele is combining a liberal line on the war with fundamental ignorance about recent developments. The war in Afghanistan is "of Obama's choosing"? If memory serves, the war began in 2001, before Obama was even in the Senate, better yet the White House. The war "not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in"? We chose to "actively prosecute" this war from Day One. Michael Steele has made some bizarre and humiliating remarks since taking charge at the RNC, but I can't make heads or tails of this one. It does, however, offer yet another opportunity to ask Republican leaders what they think of their party chairman's odd public comments. This one should generate some interesting responses. Update: My friend Bill Simmon reminds me that Steele's thinking seems to be in line with Vizzini in "The Princess Bride." —Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
A DECISION TO MAKE.... The Washington Post's Frank Ahrens had an interesting item yesterday, noting a "raft of bad economic data" that was released yesterday -- before this morning's awful jobs report. Ahrens noted, for example, the "terrible home sales number," which coincided with "weak construction spending" and an unexpected drop in U.S. manufacturing activity.
Well, the decision really doesn't sound that difficult. It's similar to the decision we faced early last year. In the wake of Republican policy failures, Democrats inherited two related problems: a deep recession and huge deficit. Addressing both wasn't an option -- dealing with one problem necessarily made the other worse. The Democratic majority decided economic growth and job creation was more important than the deficit, which was clearly the right call. At that point, they had to choose between competing options: 1. Pass a massive, ambitious economic stimulus. 2. Pass a trimmed down economic stimulus that could overcome a Republican filibuster. 3. Do nothing. 4. Pass a five-year spending freeze proposed by confused congressional Republicans at the time. Left with limited options, Democrats went with Door #2. We would have been better off with Door #1, but we can all be very thankful Doors #3 and #4 were rejected. Indeed, it's genuinely pathetic to hear Republicans this morning boasting that the stimulus "didn't work." It did work -- the Recovery Act prevented a catastrophic depression -- and their alternative at the time permanently undermines their credibility on the subject. But as the stimulus comes to an end, the economy is slowing badly (which largely helps prove that the stimulus kept us afloat for over a year), and we're left with another choice -- a very similar choice to the one we faced 17 months ago. Look at Ahrens' take again: we can either let the economy fall backwards or we can add to our debt. That this is even considered a tough call strikes me as rather bizarre. Indeed, as this debate heats up -- and I sincerely hope it does -- pay careful attention to the fact that conservative lawmakers don't have a competing vision to improve the economy. By their own admission, strengthening the recovery isn't the goal; lowering the deficit they created is the goal. They're not only offering the wrong answer; they're asking the wrong question. The economy appears to be slowing. The threat of another recession is real. It's not too late to get the recovery back on track, but it's gut-check time for U.S. leaders. Are they up to the challenge? —Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
A PAINFUL REVERSAL FOR U.S. JOB MARKET.... All available evidence suggested the monthly job totals in June were going to be disappointing. They were. A positive trend has been evident for the last year and a half -- as stimulus efforts bolstered economic growth, the economy added jobs. This was especially evident since the new year, as the economy added jobs in each of the past five months, with each month better than the last. In June, however, the trend reversed, and the economy shed 125,000 jobs, the worst month since October.
If there's even the slightest bit of less-bad news in today's BLS report, it's that last point about private-sector hiring. While those 83,000 new jobs are hardly sufficient, the total exceeded expectations and represented an improvement over May. Nevertheless, one can only hope that this report makes it abundantly clear to policymakers in Washington that more investment in job creation is necessary. Cutting spending and focusing on deficit reduction, as Republicans demand, may prove disastrous. For what it's worth, the job numbers for April and May were revised upwards, but only a little. While previous estimates showed the economy adding 290,000 jobs in April, the updated total was a gain of 313,000. May's numbers were revised from 431,000 to 433,000. Once again, here's the homemade chart I run on the first Friday of every month, 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 AMERICA JOHN BOEHNER GREW UP IN.... The interview House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) did with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review this week turned out to be a pretty big deal. His remarks comparing the global financial crisis to "an ant" continue to be the subject of debate, as do his comments about raising the Social Security retirement age in order to pay for the wars in the Middle East. But I'm also glad to see interest in another quote linger. In reference to Democrats, Boehner said, "They're snuffing out the America that I grew up in." Nostalgia for the 1950s and 1960s isn't uncommon, but it's worth considering exactly what Boehner wants to go back to. Michael Tomasky, for example, had a great item yesterday noting some of the policies that were common during Boehner's youth.
Is this the American Boehner wants to return to? I imagine Democrats would be happy to talk about it. For that matter, America in the 1950s and 1960s was also heavily regulated -- airlines didn't even set their own prices -- and there weren't many complaints about "big government"' or "excessive spending" when a Republican president (Eisenhower) launched one of the biggest domestic infrastructure projects in history (the interstate highway system). Is this the American Boehner wants to return to? What's more, politically, the Republican Party was very moderate -- indeed, it had plenty of northern liberals -- and, when it came to congressional votes, partisanship was a historic low. The GOP establishment was aware of right-wing nuts who wanted to eliminate Social Security and the rest of the New Deal reforms, but Republicans considered them bizarre kooks, better left ignored, or as the Republican president of the era labeled them, "stupid." Is this the American Boehner wants to return to? Socially, America in the 1950s and 1960s was a repressive place for African Americans, Jews, and gays, and by any reasonable standard, women were second-class citizens in every aspect of American life. Is this the American Boehner wants to return to? That's not really a rhetorical question. If the would-be Speaker wants to argue publicly that Democrats are trying "snuff out" the America that he grew up in, the public should know exactly what it is about that era he wants to fight to protect, or more to the point, bring back. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
July 1, 2010
THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Last night, the House approved the final version of Wall Street reform, with a 237 to 192 vote. Three House Republicans broke party ranks to support the landmark legislation. * Analysts expected unemployment claims to drop over the last week. They went up: "Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000 in the week ended June 26, the Labor Department said." * President Obama makes his pitch for immigration reform. * Not that it'll do much good, but the House today approved extended unemployment benefits for the next five months. The vote was 270 to 153. In the face of a Republican Senate filibuster, it doesn't matter. * In related news, there are 17 senators -- all Republicans -- who have voted repeatedly against extended benefits, despite double-digit jobless rates in their home states. * Hurricane Alex, which has begun to dissipate, slams into northern Mexico, killing two. * Pakistan: "At least two suicide bombers attacked a popular Muslim shrine in the Pakistani city of Lahore late Thursday night, killing 35 people and wounding 175 others, the city's top official said." * The reasons for worry are mounting: "A slowdown in the housing and construction markets contributed to a sluggish outlook for the economy Thursday, highlighting the significance of government stimulus and job creation." * Michael Cohen endorses a thesis I've been emphasizing: it's very likely the "real reason" Senate Republicans "are opposing a meager amount of deficit spending to help the unemployed" is that "they really don't want to see the economy improve." * The late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was lying in state for most of the day on the Senate floor * The Obama administration launches Healthcare.gov, which is actually pretty useful, and is off to a productive start. * Getting a better sense of the important litigation between Daily Kos and Research 2000. * Local law enforcement in Oregon takes a renewed look at the sexual assault allegations against Al Gore. * Fox News to give Mike Huckabee a tryout as a daily talk-show host. * Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) gives Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) a much-needed history lesson. * The 11 alleged Russian spies arrested this week were apparently surprisingly bad at espionage. * Which colleges (appear to) offer the best return on your investment? * The White House announces plans to deal with space junk. Good. * A poll of 238 presidential scholars puts George W. Bush among the five worst presidents in U.S. history. That seems more than fair. * There's actually a rather poignant point underlying the Tea Party Jesus site. Anything to add? Consider this an open thread. —Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)
TORTURE IS TORTURE.... An important Harvard study (pdf) was released recently on how several major U.S. media outlets characterize waterboarding -- based on the year and which country was utilizing the technique. As Glenn Greenwald explained in his piece on the study's findings, the research examined "how waterboarding has been discussed by America's four largest newspapers over the past 100 years, and finds that the technique, almost invariably, was unequivocally referred to as 'torture' -- until the U.S. Government began openly using it and insisting that it was not torture, at which time these newspapers obediently ceased describing it that way." The results were strikingly one sided. In the New York Times, when other countries waterboarded, it was labeled accurately as "torture" 85.8% of the time. And then there was a shift in the Bush/Cheney era -- the NYT called "waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles" between 2002 and 2008. That's 1.4%. Michael Calderone followed up with the paper of record, which believes the study is "misleading," though a Times spokesperson acknowledged political considerations.
The paper's explanation is wholly unsatisfying. Let me see if I understand the pitch here: 1. The NYT defines waterboarding as torture, which is consistent with the law and the technique's history. 2. The Bush/Cheney administration decides it wants a new definition of "torture." 3. The NYT can't "take sides" in a "political dispute," so, in news stories, it stops defining waterboarding as torture, even if the editors/publishers know better. In application, that's a truly awful journalistic standard. By that reasoning, any group of political figures can dictate what professional media outlets call anything, simply by unilaterally declaring a "political dispute." There's simply no reason for the New York Times to turn over its style guide to politicians -- who, incidentally, were hoping to cover up apparent crimes. If waterboarding is torture -- which it clearly, unambiguously is -- then it doesn't matter who's utilizing the technique or when. —Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)
MAYBE STEVE KING SHOULD MEET MORE PEOPLE.... Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) ran into a little trouble two weeks ago, effectively accusing President Obama of racism. This week, King returned to the House floor to once again share some thoughts on race, in particular his outrage over the creation of an Office of Women and Minority Inclusion as part of the Wall Street reform initiative.
First, if the ridiculous congressman could resist the urge to speak for Martin Luther King, I know I'm not the only one who'd appreciate it. Second, for all of Steve King's boasts about standing up as a champion of "equal opportunity," his record suggests otherwise. As Matt Finkelstein explained, "In 2006, he opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. Last year, he voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and claimed gay marriage is a 'socialist concept.' More recently, he's advocated for Arizona's anti-immigration law by suggesting that police officers can identify illegal immigrants by their shoes and grooming." And third, if King doesn't know anyone who cherishes equal opportunity more than he does, the GOP lawmaker really needs to get out more. As Adam Serwer recently explained, "This is, of course, the same Steve King who has defended the Confederate flag, advocated for racial profiling, referred to the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses as 'separatist groups,' and said that people in the Middle East would be 'dancing in the streets' if Obama was elected because of his middle name. He was also the only -- repeat -- only congressman to vote against recognizing the contributions of slaves in building the U.S. Capitol, where King now spends his time spewing this kind of nonsense." —Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)
SENATE GOP REVERSES COURSE, WILL APPROVE SUBPOENA POWER IN BP PROBE.... We talked earlier about a bizarre move by Senate Republicans yesterday, blocking subpoena power for the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. This afternoon, the GOP reversed course. To briefly review, the House last week voted 420 to 1 to give the commission investigating the disaster subpoena power, so panelists could get answers from BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and various government agencies. Given the bipartisan support, the relevant precedent, and the practical needs, Senate Democrats considered this a no-brainer that could be approved through unanimous consent. But yesterday, Senate Republicans -- it's not clear which ones -- objected. Asked for an explanation, the GOP didn't have one. Today, Republicans, perhaps afraid of giving the appearance of protecting oil companies again, reversed course.
Good. Approval will have to wait, of course, until the Senate returns to session the week after next, but it's encouraging to know it'll happen. Yes, I'm setting the bar pretty low at what constitutes "encouraging" when it comes to the Senate. Of all the various things to argue over, this one just didn't make any sense. The commission can't get answers without subpoena power, and Congress has routinely extended subpoena power to related commissions -- including panels investigating the JFK assassination, the Three Mile Island disaster, and the 9/11 attacks. Senate Republicans' move yesterday was bizarre, and I'm glad they're backing off. —Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
DELICATE SENSIBILITIES AND TWO-WAY STREETS.... President Obama hosted a town-hall meeting in Wisconsin yesterday, and appeared to be in campaign mode. Apparently annoyed by 18 months of Republican nonsense, the president even chided the opposition party a bit. "Before I was even inaugurated, there were leaders on the other side of the aisle who got together and they made the calculation that 'if Obama fails, then we win,'" the president said. "That was the basic theory. They figured if we just keep on saying no to everything and nothing gets done, then somehow people will forget who got us into this mess in the first place and we'll get more votes in November." He proceeded to highlight recent history, and the ways in which Republicans have managed to be wrong about practically everything. "[W]e've tried the other side's theories," he added. "We know what their ideas are. We know where they led us. So now we've got a choice. We can return to what we know did not work, or we build a stronger future. We can go backwards, or we can go forward. And I don't know about you, but I want to move forward in this country." Roll Call reports today that presidential remarks like these hurt Republicans' feelings.
Take a moment to consider exactly what congressional Republicans are saying here. They can root for his failure; they can oppose every proposal; they can stoke the fires of hate and paranoia; they can engage in truly scandalous legislative obstruction on a scale unseen in American history; they can even lie uncontrollably throughout key policy debates. But if Obama hits the campaign trail and has some unkind words for the party that's desperate to destroy his presidency, then Republicans believe it's his fault there isn't more bipartisan cooperation. This is painfully silly. The White House has made repeated good-faith efforts to work constructively with Republicans, and they're not interested. It's hard to blame Obama for calling the GOP out once in a while. —Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... The New York Times Magazine will publish a big feature on Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) this weekend, which I suspect will spark some interesting discussion. For now, let's take note of the quote that's likely to get the most attention.
As a matter of policy, I don't agree with Graham about much of anything, but all of these observations are entirely sound. The reason I put "movement" in quotes every time I write about the Tea Partiers is that it's a contingent with no clear agenda, no leadership, no internal structure, and no meaningful connection to reality. 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 Graham put it, a "coherent vision." The Tea Party has Hitler signs and a cable news network, but that's not much of a substitute. Indeed, there's already some evidence the "movement" may be "in danger of breaking apart before it ever really comes together." But Graham's remarks, while defensible, are likely to cause all manner of trouble for him. He's already been condemned by right-wing South Carolinians, and that was just for talking to Democrats about possible compromises on public policy. For Graham to trash the confused Tea Party crowd -- to the New York Times, no less -- will likely make his life in Republican politics considerably more difficult. As for Graham's observation that Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today," it's hard to overstate how true this is. I'm reminded of something Rachel Maddow told viewers last week:
It's an ongoing area of interest for me, so I'm glad Graham brought it up. Indeed, in addition to Rachel's observations, I'd also note that as governor, Reagan increased spending, raised taxes, helped create the nation's first state-based emissions standards, signed an abortion-rights bill, and expanded the nation's largest state-based Medicaid program (socialized medicine). Then, as president, Reagan raised taxes in seven out of the eight years in office, approved "amnesty" for immigrants who entered the country illegally, and met with our most hated enemy without preconditions. Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today"? Reagan would have a hard time not getting laughed off the Republican stage today. —Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)
BEN'S BETRAYAL.... By definition, when the Senate majority is looking for 60 votes, but comes up with 59, every opponent was necessarily "the deciding vote." That was certainly true last night, when the Senate tried to extend unemployment benefits, and needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. They came up one short, and 1.3 million jobless Americans will lose their benefits as a consequence. When was the last time Congress allowed benefits to expire with unemployment rates this high? It's simply never happened. And while each of the 38 senators who refused to allow the chamber to vote on the bill bears some of the responsibility for this, there's a special burden on Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) -- he was the only Democrat to betray the party (and the unemployed) on this vote, and he's supposed to know better. Indeed, with two Republicans voting with the Democratic majority, Nelson's vote put him to the right of some GOP senators. Nelson could have voted against the bill, but instead he backed a GOP filibuster. What is he thinking? Here's a statement from the senator's office:
This is simply incoherent. Nelson talks of "tough choices," but chooses to emphasize the deficit over the economy. He also neglects to mention that he's supported emergency funding for the jobless before, but is reversing course at a critically important time with a fragile economy. But when Nelson says emergency spending "could jeopardize the recovery," it sounds an awful lot like gibberish. The conservative Nebraskan has been deeply confused about this before, and his ongoing desire to emphasize the deficit over the economy is ridiculous. We've come to expect such nonsense from Republicans -- the ones who got us into this mess, and who created the enormous deficit in the first place -- but Nelson is supposed to know better. Even if we take the senator's statement at face value, it suggests Nelson should vote against extended unemployment benefits. It doesn't explain, though, why he feels compelled to back a Republican filibuster. If he's against the extension, fine, he can oppose it. But Ben Nelson is saying that jobless Americans have to suffer because he won't even let the bill come to the floor for a vote. It's just indefensible. —Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)
THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers. * Karl Rove's American Crossroads, an outfit created to destroy Democratic candidates this year, pulled in nearly $8.5 million in June. * Speaking of Republican fundraising, the Republican Governors Association collected $18.9 million in the second quarter -- easily the best quarter in RGA history. * Illinois Senate hopeful Alexi Giannoulias' (D) campaign unveiled a pretty devastating, minute-long video yesterday, highlighting opponent Mark Kirk's (R) record of falsehoods about his military service. * In a setback for Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) in Florida's Senate race, the Florida Pipe Trades, an influential union, endorsed Gov. Charlie Crist's (I) campaign yesterday. * It's Rasmussen, so take the results with a grain of salt, but the pollster shows right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) leading state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) in Kentucky' Senate race, 49% to 42%. * In Ohio, yet another poll shows Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) with a narrow lead over former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R). This time, it's Public Policy Polling, which has Fisher up by two , 40% to 38%. * Rep. Charlie Melancon's (D) Senate campaign in Louisiana is going after Sen. David Vitter (R) pretty aggressively in light of revelations that Vitter kept a violent criminal on his public payroll, even putting the aide in charge of women's issues, despite his role in assaulting his girlfriend. * In Florida, disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott, a leading GOP gubernatorial candidate, went after his primary rival, state Attorney General Bill McCollum, for having endorsed Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. Giuliani, Scott said, was a "pro-homosexual rights candidate." * In Wisconsin, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker (R) leading this year's gubernatorial race by seven over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), 45% to 38%. * And the Democratic National Committee said yesterday that the four finalists to host the 2012 national convention are Charlotte, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and St. Louis. —Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)
'NO INTRINSIC CONTRADICTION'.... Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, is an economist conservatives like to cite, especially when he argues in support of budget cuts. Indeed, Elmendorf has a rather bleak view of the nation's fiscal future, which also helps reinforce the right's arguments about deficit reduction. With that background in mind, Jonathan Cohn flags some interesting remarks the CBO chief made to the bipartisan fiscal commission. While the prevailing attitude among many policymakers -- including practically every Republican in D.C. -- is that it's more important to cut spending now than improve the economy, Elmendorf reminded commission members of an important point:
Elmendorf later said that focusing on deficits and debt now, when the economy is still fragile, "would probably slow the economic recovery." This is so obvious, it's astounding that Congress chooses not to see it. Elmendorf isn't saying he wants to ignore the long-term budget shortfall -- on the contrary, he takes it extremely seriously -- he's saying it makes sense to focus on the deficit when the economy is strong, not when it's weak. For now, it need not be considered fiscally irresponsible to "provide additional fiscal stimulus today," when the economy needs it. As Cohn explained, "If even Elmendorf doesn't see a problem with temporary deficit spending -- emphasis on the 'temporary' -- the rest of us shouldn't, either." Conservatives believe this is backwards, and are in a position to prevent Congress from improving the nation's economic conditions. The consequences will likely be severe for the nation -- though the electorate will probably reward the party and its candidates who get it wrong. —Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)
SENATE GOP UNDERCUTS BP PROBE.... Most reasonable people can probably agree that there are some pretty stark ideological divisions in the House of Representatives. With that in mind, when a measure passes the chamber 420 to 1, it stands to reason that it's a no-brainer. Or at least, it should be. Last week, the House overwhelmingly approved giving subpoena power to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The panel was created by the White House to investigate the worst environmental catastrophe in U.S. history, and needs subpoena power to get answers from private industries and government agencies. Given the 420 to 1 vote, Senate Democrats sought unanimous consent yesterday to resolve the issue and let the commission do its job. It's an easy one, right? Wrong. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) refused, objecting on behalf of others in the Republican conference that he would not name. "I have to conclude by the objections that there are colleagues on the other side that either don't want to get to the bottom of this -- or are standing on the side of the oil companies and not of the victims and their families," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told reporters. I've long since run out of adjectives to describe these folks. The commission can't get answers without subpoena power, and Congress has routinely extended subpoena power to related commissions -- including panels investigating the JFK assassination, the Three Mile Island disaster, and the 9/11 attacks. And yet, Senate Republicans yesterday blocked the authority for the BP commission, and wouldn't say why. —Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)
PALIN'S ANN CURRY PROBLEM.... Ann Curry of NBC's "Today" show was pretty embarrassed in May when she delivered a now-infamous commencement speech at Wheaton College. Curry highlighted several distinguished Wheaton alumni in her remarks, not realizing she was referring to the wrong Wheaton College -- she listed graduates of the evangelical Christian college in Illinois, not the Wheaton College in Norton, Mass., where she was speaking. After realizing her mistake, Curry was understandably mortified, and later apologized to the school. She did her best to be a good sport about the whole mess, joking about it on a late-night talk show. Well, misery loves company. Ann Curry, meet former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. (via my Monthly colleague Daniel Luzer)
While Palin told her Golden State audience that Reagan attended "California's Eureka College," there is no such institution. I guess it wasn't "destiny" after all? —Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)
ENOUGH WITH THE JONES ACT TALKING POINT.... Conservatives hoping to complain about President Obama's response to the BP oil spill disaster tend to have trouble with specifics. The right is certain they want the president to do more, but struggle when asked to elaborate in detail. In recent weeks, one of the more common complaints has to do with the Jones Act. Liz Cheney, assorted Fox News personalities (Beck, Ingraham, Carlson), Sarah Palin, John McCain, Dick Armey, the Heritage Foundation, and random House Republicans have all said if Obama were serious about the federal response, he would have waived the maritime law. In keeping with recent trends, the argument has already been debunked, but that hasn't stopped Republicans from repeating it. McClatchy is the latest to try to set the record straight.
There are currently 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries in the Gulf, helping with the response effort. How many needed a waiver to participate? None. How many vessels have been turned away because of the Jones Act? None. In fact, just this week, a dozen more offers of foreign assistance have been accepted. The Jones Act had no bearing on any of this. But the right just keeps lying, suggesting Obama refuses to waive the law due to union pressure. Michael Sacco, the president of the 80,000-member Seafarers International Union, told McClatchy that claims of organized-labor interference in the cleanup efforts were "ridiculous." Something to keep in mind the next time we hear the argument, which if recent history is any guide, will be made once again any minute now. —Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)
KAGAN, VEGETABLES, AND CONTEXT.... As a rule, when you see the words, "Far-right blogs are all worked up about _____," you can probably assume the development that fills in the blank is foolish. Yesterday, the rule held true. As part of Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) wanted to explore the nominee's approach to government regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. He came up with a hypothetical: "If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and it's now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?" Kagan replied that such an effort "sounds like a dumb law." Realizing that Coburn was apparently serious, she added, "But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it's constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless." Coburn added that he wants to know whether the government can tell Americans what to eat. As Kagan pondered how best to answer, the far-right senator insisted that the constitutional framers "never imagined that we would be so stupid to take our liberties away" through the Commerce Clause. The video of that exchange quickly became a right-wing favorite -- pushed aggressively by Drudge, Hannity, and Senate Republicans -- because it was apparently "proof" that Kagan supports some kind of expansive "nanny state." What the excited conservatives didn't realize is that the discussion continued beyond the 78 seconds shown in the circulated YouTube clip.
So, while Republicans and allied activists threw a fit over Kagan dodging the question, the nominee actually answered it, and did not take a wildly expansive view of the Commerce Clause. Coburn was playing a little game, but his GOP friends got all worked up over nothing. As Kevin Drum concluded, "We are truly ruled by idiots. At least, we will be if Republicans win control of Congress in November. Be afraid. Be very afraid." —Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)
THIRD TIME WASN'T THE CHARM FOR UNEMPLOYED.... The Senate was almost allowed to vote up or down on extended unemployment benefits, but Democrats came one vote short of ending a Republican filibuster.
Voinovich's offer wasn't exactly constructive -- he was prepared to let the Senate vote, just so long as Democrats agreed to spend less on economic recovery. The fact that such an offer is both foolish and counter-productive seemed to elude the Ohio senator. The final vote was 58 to 38 -- yes, in our Senate, 38 trumps 58 -- but it was actually a 59-vote majority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had to switch from yea to nea for procedural reasons. To their credit, two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, finally agreed to end the filibuster on jobless aid. Democrats, then, only needed one more vote, and hoped Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) or Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) would come through. They refused. The good news, if you could call it that, is that Democrats will likely get a 60th vote once the late Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-W.Va.) vacancy is filled. But with the caucus still one vote short, the leadership had no choice but to adjourn last night. The Senate will reconvene a week from Monday, on July 12. In the meantime, as of tomorrow, 1.3 million jobless Americans will have lost their benefits. By the time Byrd's replacement is named, the total will be 2 million. When was the last time Congress allowed benefits to expire with unemployment rates this high? It's simply never happened. —Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
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
|
||||||||
