Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 31, 2010

IRAQ SPEECH OPEN THREAD.... In about 10 minutes, President Obama will speak from the Oval Office, delivering an address on the formal end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. You can watch the speech right here:

So, what'd you think? The floor is yours.

Steve Benen 7:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* It's probably best to keep expectations low: "President Obama plunges into Middle East peacemaking on Wednesday with two days of summitry he hopes will be the first step in brokering an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement within a year."

* It was nice to see a little bump in consumer confidence for a change.

* No need to panic: "A U.S. government official says the FBI's investigation of two men detained in Amsterdam is finding that it's unlikely they were on a test run for a future terror attack, even as Dutch authorities continued to hold the pair on suspicion of conspiring to commit a terrorist act. The U.S. official says the two men arrested in Amsterdam did not know each other and were not traveling together."

* Tragic, but not surprising: "A veteran of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division says he'd be surprised if the fire at the site of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. isn't investigated as a hate crime."

* And while Murfreesboro bigots are grabbing headlines, there are some displays of real decency in the community, too.

* Fingers crossed: "The Justice Department has filed its appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, warning that the decision could shut down life-saving research and stall medical breakthroughs."

* On a related note, another hate crime, this time in Seattle, where some moron attacked a convenience-store clerk, saying, "You're not even American, you're Al-Qaeda. Go back to your country." The victim was very likely Sikh, not Muslim.

* A pleasant surprise to see Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) implicitly defend health care reform from a baseless attack from his state's Republican governor.

* On a related note, the popularity of the Affordable Care Act is slipping.

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has been disappointing lately, but he swears he's not going into lobbying after leaving the Senate at the end of the year.

* Donald Graham puts his mouth where his money is.

* Great piece from Dahlia Lithwick: "Ruth Bader Ginsburg shows how feminism is done. Again."

* And finally, the right was none too pleased when CBS News published an estimate of 87,000 attendees to Glenn Beck's still-pointless rally over the weekend. Unlike many conservatives, who continue to insist that several gazillion people were on hand, CBS has published a detailed report, explaining how the estimate was calculated. Sorry, conservatives, the network's count seems legit.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

THE COMPANY BOEHNER KEEPS.... Oh my.

On his nationally syndicated radio program Sunday night, hate radio host Bill Cunningham said that he will broadcast his show from the office of Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) on this November's Election Day, and was invited by Boehner himself. "I'm going to do my show that day from the portico of the Speaker of the House's office in the U.S. Capitol. I've been invited there by the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and I'll be the only radio talk show host in the speaker's office, doing my show from the portico overlooking the Washington Monument," Cunningham said. "And I'm going to do it."

And who's Bill Cunningham? This is Bill Cunningham.

Vituperative remarks about President Obama are a staple of Cunningham's radio show. He has attacked Obama as a racist, alleged that the president wants to "gas the Jews," and invoked "six-six-six" and "the beast" in discussing "Barack Hussein Obama." He's adopted the rhetoric of birthers and even made racially charged remarks about Obama's father, stating, "That's what black fathers do. They simply leave."

The poor are also among Cunningham's favorite targets for attack: He has stated that they are impoverished "because they lack values, ethics, and morals," and advocated "beat[ing] the hell outta" homeless people with "a big old cane, Singapore-style."

Ryan Rudominer, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement, "It says a great deal about John Boehner's arrogance and extreme right wing agenda that as he prematurely measures the drapes, he would roll out the red carpet for hatemonger's like Bill Cunningham, who has a history of making despicable comments about Jews, African Americans, and other minorities."

Nothing says "responsible national leader" like inviting a lunatic shock-jock into a congressional leadership office to broadcast on Election Day.

I was trying to think of an equivalent -- imagine if Nancy Pelosi invited ______ to broadcast his show from her office -- but the left just doesn't seem to have comparable unhinged loudmouths.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

THE LEGISLATION GAP.... When House members complain about the Senate, it's worth remembering that their concerns have real merit. As recently as February, there were 82 bills that had passed the House, waiting for Senate consideration. The number is considerably higher now.

When the Senate returns from its summer break in September, lawmakers will have quite a full plate of legislation to address: 372 bills, to be exact.

That's the number of bills passed by the House that are awaiting action in the Senate, according to an updated list provided to The Hill.... And with the midterm elections in high gear and partisan rancor already poisoning a potential lame-duck session after November, it's likely most of the House-passed bills will stay on the shelf.

A large legislation gap between the House and Senate is not unusual; the Senate was designed, in the famous description by George Washington, as a cooling saucer. But food left out to cool too long will spoil, and so will federal legislation: By law, if a bill is not passed by both chambers in the same Congress, it must be re-introduced in January.

Also note, it's not just the House that's frustrated -- the White House has sent nominations for judges and administration officials to the Senate, and like the House bills, they've gotten stuck, thanks to scandalous Republican abuses and delaying tactics. It's what happens when one petty minority decides to deliberately break a once-great institution.

Of course, once the new Congress is sworn in early next year, this phenomenon will go from embarrassing to farcical, when GOP gains, and likely control of the House, destroy any hopes of legislating before 2013, at the earliest.

Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

'YOUNG GUNS' EMBRACE RYAN ROADMAP?.... The House Republican leadership has been reluctant to embrace, at least formally, Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) "Roadmap for America's Future." That's not surprising -- Ryan's plan is both radical and ridiculous, and GOP leaders don't necessarily want to spend the next two months talking about it.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), in particular, has been especially reluctant to say whether he's on board with the Ryan proposal. But it's about to get considerably more difficult to separate the GOP leadership from the radical plan.

In a new book to be released next month, three House Republican leaders include many of the policies and ideas that some in their party have promoted over the last year, as well as a controversial plan to drastically cut the country's entitlement spending.

The proposed entitlement overhaul by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), known as the Roadmap for America's Future, is featured with many GOP solutions for the debt, national security and health care in "Young Guns," according to an early edition of the book obtained by Roll Call. Ryan, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wrote the book.

The three divided the majority of the writing into separately authored sections, but the inclusion of the entitlement plan indicates an implied endorsement by at least some of the GOP leadership. [...]

"It's time we stop deferring tough decisions and promising fiscal fantasies," Ryan wrote in the book. "It's time we tell Americans the truth, offer them a choice, and count on them to do what's right."

Works for me. The truth is, Paul Ryan's "roadmap" is a right-wing fantasy, slashing taxes on the rich while raising taxes for everyone else. The plan calls for privatizing Social Security and gutting Medicare, and fails miserably in its intended goal -- cutting the deficit. As Paul Krugman recently explained, the Ryan plan "is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future."

When Republican candidates embrace this plan to radically transform governmental institutions and Americans' way of life, they're endorsing a Republican vision of governing more extreme than anything we've seen in the modern political era.

Yesterday, Ryan reminded reporters that his roadmap is not the official position of the House Republican Conference, but how long is this shell-game going to last? Can Eric Cantor, whose political action committee is chiefly responsible for this "Young Guns" book, credibly argue that he only agrees with certain chapters of his own book?

The House Republican leadership's Whip and Deputy Whip are publishing a book touting a specific plan. Must we maintain the pretense that the right-wing roadmap belongs solely to Paul Ryan?

On a related note, the book, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders," was mocked rather relentlessly on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" earlier, and for good reason.

If you want to see the original, self-aggrandizing video that Cantor's production team put together, it's online here. It's as obnoxiously over the top as anything I've seen from Republicans in quite a while.

Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

AN UNEASY, UNSUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIP.... Glenn Beck said the other day, as part of his attacks on President Obama, "People aren't recognizing his version of Christianity."

The irony is, Beck's ostensible allies aren't recognizing his version of Christianity, either.

We've been talking a bit lately about the Beck, who apparently now wants to lead some sort of religious revival, and the discomfort with that within the religious right. The movement is, after all, compromised almost entirely of evangelical Christians, who aren't generally comfortable with Beck's Mormonism.

"I'm a little nervous about that kind of talk," said Janet Mefferd, a nationally syndicated Christian talk show host who said most callers Monday wanted to talk about Beck. "I know he means well and loves this country, but he doesn't know enough about theology to know what kind of effect he's having. Christians are hearing something different than what he thinks he's saying."

If this were simply a matter of politics, it'd be much easier -- Beck, his minions, and the religious right tend to hate America's current leadership in largely the same way, for largely the same reasons. The problem, though, is that their differences are theological -- American theocrats appreciate Beck's madness, but not his LDS membership.

Russell Moore, dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's School of Theology, has publicly expressed his strong disapproval of Christians cooperating with Beck's little crusade, and Moore's comments are already causing quite a stir in evangelical circles. He wrote:

A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they've heard the gospel, right there in the nation's capital.

The news media pronounces him the new leader of America's Christian conservative movement, and a flock of America's Christian conservatives have no problem with that.

If you'd told me that ten years ago, I would have assumed it was from the pages of an evangelical apocalyptic novel about the end-times. But it's not. It's from this week's headlines. And it is a scandal....To Jesus, Satan offered power and glory. To us, all he needs offer is celebrity and attention. Mormonism and Mammonism are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ....

Moore added that it's "sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ." He looked forward to a "new generation" of Christians "who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer."

Ouch.

Meanwhile, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and an active player in D.C. politics, has met in private with Beck, but continues to insist that Mormonism is "not a Christian faith."

The more Beck tries to position himself as a religious right leader for the future, the more these divisions will rise to the surface -- and grow more intense.

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN A PARTY GOES MAD.... There's plenty of interesting data in the latest Newsweek poll, and I've generally focused on what it had to say about President Obama's standing, the generic congressional ballot, and the economy. Sam Stein highlights a tidbit from the results that I'd overlooked.

A majority of Republicans believe that President Barack Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world," according to a survey released on Monday.

That figure, buried at the very end of a newly released Newsweek public opinion poll, reflects the extent to which a shocking bit of smear and misinformation has managed to become nearly commonplace within the GOP tent.

A full 14 percent of Republicans said that it was "definitely true" that Obama sympathized with the fundamentalists and wanted to impose Islamic law across the globe. An additional 38 percent said that it was probably true -- bringing the total percentage of believers to 52 percent. Only 33 percent of Republicans said that the "allegation" (as Newsweek put it) was "probably not true." Seven percent said it was "definitely not true."

It's hard to overstate how truly insane this is. This isn't, by the way, a matter of the public not knowing what "sharia" means -- the question read, "Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations?"

Adam Serwer makes the case that "Americans don't have a very good understanding of what Islamic law is." That's no doubt true. For that matter, the poll results, if accurate, may very well be an extension of just reflexive partisan hatred -- people who hate the president suspect he may sympathize with foreign Islamic fundamentalists, not because it's true, but because they hate him so much they're inclined to believe anything. ("Some people have alleged Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Lrrr, the Omicronian ruler of Omicron Persei 8, who intends to come to Earth to enslave humanity. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations?")

But whatever the rationale, it's hard to get over the fact that Obama Derangement Syndrome has become so pervasive on the right, literally most of the nation's rank-and-file Republicans appear to have gone stark raving mad.

If/when there's a GOP majority on the Hill, Republican officials should probably realize now that this party base will simply not tolerate any kind of constructive policymaking with the White House, making the prospects for a functioning political process next year almost laughable.

Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

CHUTZPAH WATCH -- KOCH EDITION.... There's been a fair amount of attention lately focused on David and Charles Koch, right-wing billionaires going to great lengths, mainly through their "Americans for Prosperity" outfit, to bolster Republicans in 2010.

With that in mind, this report from Igor Volsky is pretty striking.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services announced the "first round of applicants accepted into the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program," a $5 billion program established by the new health care law to help employers and states "maintain coverage for early retirees age 55 and older who are not yet eligible for Medicare." According to the agency, "nearly 2,000 employers, representing large and small businesses, State and local governments, educational institutions, non-profits, and unions" applied and have been accepted into the program and "will begin to receive reimbursements for employee claims this fall."

Ironically, one of those employers is the oil, chemicals, and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, which as Lee Fang has reported, has also spent millions of dollars opposing reform.

Indeed, a year ago this month, Americans for Prosperity organized crazed rallies in opposition to health care reform, in one instance going so far as to compare the Democratic plan to the Nazi Holocaust.

This is the same group that invested $1.7 million in attack ads, blatantly lying to the American public about the reform proposal, falsely telling the country that Democrats were publishing a socialized, Canadian-style system.

And now the Koch Brothers want in on receiving grants through the same law they fought like crazy to kill.

The right's capacity for shamelessness continues to impress.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* Sen. Lisa Murkowski had a back-up plan if the final ballot tally in Alaska's GOP Senate primary went against her: run as the Libertarian nominee. Yesterday, that avenue closed when the Alaska Libertarian Party decided, in an emergency meeting, to deny Murkowski its slot on the ballot.

* In North Carolina, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Richard Burr (R) leading Elaine Marshall (D), 43% to 38%. The pollster's report explained, "The basic contours of the race remain unchanged. Burr is unpopular, while Marshall is unknown."

* A whopping 66% of Nevada voters who intend to vote for Sharron Angle (R) wish she weren't the Republican nominee.

* Retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark was in Illinois yesterday to endorse Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias (D). Not surprisingly, he called out Rep. Mark Kirk (R) for repeatedly misstating the truth about his military service.

* In the event that anyone in Kentucky cares about the professional backgrounds of their Senate candidates, Jack Conway's (D) campaign is reminding voters that he's been "darn good" at his job as state Attorney General. Conway is facing right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R), who has never served in public office, in November.

* In Minnesota, an MPR News/Humphrey Institute poll shows former Sen. Mark Dayton (D) and Tom Emmer (R) tied at 34% in this year's gubernatorial race. Independence Party candidate Tom Horner is third with 13%.

* Former representative and convicted felon Jim Traficant has collected enough signatures to run as an independent in Ohio's 17th congressional district this year.

* Following a ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday, the Michigan Tea Party, accused of being a Democratic front, will not be on the ballot in November.

* And in 2012 news, as disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) moves forward with his apparent interest in a presidential campaign, he probably shouldn't ask Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) for an endorsement.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share

GIBBS POSES STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION ON IRAQ.... The Republican line of the day seems to be that President Obama, when he was Senator Obama, opposed the surge strategy in Iraq -- and as such, the end of combat operations doesn't count as a success. Or something.

We talked last week about why this argument is misguided, even for the GOP, but the president's team is going a step further, asking these same Republicans to answer a straightforward question.

The White House sought on Tuesday to put the pressure on top Republicans to say whether they support the withdrawal of 90,000 troops this month from Iraq.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs questioned GOP leaders -- in particular, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- to say where they stand on the change in mission in Iraq that resulted in the withdrawal of tens of thousands of U.S. troops from the country.

"I think what the American people would like to know with Congressman Boehner is: Do you support the withdrawing of 90,000 troops that the president is marking today?" Gibbs said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

On MSNBC, Gibbs added, "I think it's going to be interesting to hear from Republican leaders on where they stand on the decision to bring 90,000 troops home from Iraq."

It's an interesting rhetorical ploy. As far as the GOP is concerned, there's no such thing as good news -- remember when they characterized the best monthly job totals in years as "disappointing"? -- and giving credit to the president for anything positive is absurd on its face.

But is it that difficult for the president's Republican detractors to at least be a little pleased when U.S. troops come home?

For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is crediting Bush/Cheney, insisting that Obama's success was made possible by "adopting the Bush administration's plan."

For anyone who takes reality seriously, it's worth noting the facts. It was Barack Obama's vision of a phased withdrawal that shaped the Status of Forces Agreement signed in 2008, and it was Barack Obama's timetable that has brought the troop levels below 50,000 for the first time since the war began.

The GOP may not like it, but that's what happened.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

PLANNING AHEAD FOR A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.... The last time Republicans had a great midterm cycle under a Democratic president, they proceeded to shutdown the federal government -- twice. The public, with good reason, blamed the GOP, and party leaders took a major hit in the polls.

In his 1996 State of the Union address, then-President Clinton told lawmakers, "Never, ever shut the federal government down again."

Today's Republican Party seems inclined to ignore the suggestion.

Likely Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) in Alaska told Fox News last week that GOP lawmakers must have the "courage to shut down the government" in order to eliminate government programs he doesn't like. Right-wing CNN personality Erick Erickson said with child-like excitement yesterday, "I'm almost giddy thinking about a government shutdown next year. I cannot wait!"

And sleazy GOP consultant Dick Morris told activists late last week that Republicans should do exactly as Gingrich/Dole did 15 years ago, but this time it'll work out better.

"There's going to be a government shutdown, just like in '95 and '96 but we're going to win it this time and I'll be fightin' on your side," Morris said at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation Conference on Friday in Washington. [...]

Morris sounded a similar note in April, suggesting in a speech the Republicans should force a shutdown over health care funding.

Josh Marshall added yesterday, "Obama's veto pen can do a lot of stuff. He can veto a defunding bill too. The key though is that he's got a government to run and he needs a budget. All of which suggests that this ends up pointing in the direction of a government shutdown type standoff."

Last month, I put the odds of a government shutdown, in the event of a GOP majority, at over 50%. I continue to think that's a reasonable assessment. Indeed, it almost seems likely -- Republicans have decided that President Obama is not to be negotiated with, and there is no acceptable compromise between the White House's position and the GOP's.

Besides, if Republicans are rewarded in the midterms after moving sharply to the right-wing, they'll consider it a mandate for unflinching radicalism. I'd be surprised if they didn't shut down the government.

Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

NEW HAMPSHIRE, TOO?.... Following up on the last item, Republicans' chances of winning back the Senate would clearly be better if stronger candidates were surviving GOP primaries. We've seen this over and over again, with races that should have been easy for Republicans -- Kentucky, Nevada, Alaska -- becoming competitive with extremist nominees. As Delaware helps demonstrate, the list isn't quite done, either.

And then there's New Hampshire. Republicans successfully recruited former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R), who quickly became the frontrunner in the open Senate race. She has a reputation for being something of a moderate, and was well positioned for November.

You can probably guess what happened next. Ayotte found herself in a primary, and quickly shifted to the far-right. All of a sudden, she became open to changing the 14th Amendment; she thought it made sense to reduce the deficit by increasing the deficit; she announced her opposition to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination for no apparent reason; and she decided that she no longer accepted the notion of man-made global warming.

Asked for one area in which she disagrees with the Republican Party, Ayotte replied, "Nothing comes to mind." So much for being an "independent" voice.

Just as important, though, Ayotte is learning that being merely conservative isn't always good enough when Republicans are demanding very conservative candidates.

This weekend brought a reminder that more insurgents could still sneak through. In a Sunday editorial, New Hampshire's largest newspaper, the Union Leader, endorsed insurgent Ovide Lamontagne, one of four Republicans running in the September 14 primary for the seat now held by Judd Gregg. Lamontagne's bid has seemed hopeless for months, with polls showing him running far behind state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, the state and national GOP establishment's preferred candidate.

But the Union Leader's decision could provide Lamontagne with a spark. The fiercely conservative paper is unusually influential in right-wing circles and it tends to promote its chosen candidates more aggressively than other newspapers do.

The primary is two weeks from today, and the winner will almost certainly face Rep. Paul Hodes (D) in November. If Ayotte falters, Democratic hopes of picking up the seat grow considerably.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

FAR-RIGHT HORDES HOPE TO BRING DOWN CASTLE.... Republicans will need a net gain of 10 Senate seats if they hope to control the upper chamber next year, and by most assessments, it's a tall order. Some pick-ups, however, almost look like sure-things.

In Delaware, for example, Rep. Mike Castle (R) is one of this year's safest bets, especially in open-seat races. This is a relatively "blue" state, but Castle is a popular representative and former governor, and has a reputation for being a GOP moderate. As a result, when Dems draw up lists of key competitive contests, Delaware doesn't make the cut.

But Castle has a primary challenger, and the Republican base has no tolerance for those who fail to toe the far-right line. Suddenly, there's a "possibility" that Castle "could be the next victim of the purity purge inside the GOP tent."

Christine O'Donnell has, by and large, campaigned outside the media and political spotlight so far this election. But on Monday her efforts to take out Castle in the mid-September primary got a major boost when the Tea Party Express, which spent roughly $600,000 on Alaska Republican Joe Miller's challenge to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, pledged to do the same on her behalf.

The announcement was just the latest in a wave of Tea party momentum to build around O'Donnell's candidacy. The right-wing blogosphere has, likewise, either trumpeted or expressed intrigue in her campaign, disturbed, primarily, by Castle's moderate voting record. O'Donnell herself has pushed the meme, going so far as to pursue the endorsement of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) -- the Tea Party validator in the U.S. Senate -- and to include a picture of herself alongside the poster boy of Tea Party-ism: Florida Republican candidate Marco Rubio. This past weekend, in fact, O'Donnell shot footage at Glenn Beck's Lincoln Memorial rally for future use in her campaign ads.

Castle clearly remains the favorite, but it wasn't too long ago that Lisa Murkowski was expected to cruise past Joe Miller in Alaska, and Charlie Crist was once the prohibitive favorite over Marco Rubio in Florida.

In other words, in this environment, strange things happen. And with the Tea Party Express dumping $600,000 into Delaware to push O'Donnell over Castle, Republican leaders are getting nervous.

How nervous? Enough for party leaders to start letting political reporters know yesterday that O'Donnell "owes back taxes, had her home foreclosed on, and never received a diploma because she didn't pay her tuition."

The primary is two weeks from today, with the winner taking on New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) in November. Markos' assessment was exactly right -- if Castle wins the primary, it's a likely GOP pickup; if O'Donnell wins the primary, Dems have reason for optimism.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

HATCH GETS IT RIGHT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.... If anyone should be sympathetic to the problems facing Muslim Americans right now, it should be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After all, in many respects, Mormons have endured similar difficulties for many years -- resistance to building houses of worship, questions of whether it's a "real" religion, etc.

It's why, as disheartening as the anti-Muslim activism has been lately, it's been especially disappointing to see prominent LDS members remain silent, and in many instances, even embrace intolerance.

It's also why Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of the nation's most prominent Mormons, deserves credit for stepping up and supporting a principle that isn't popular right now. Here's what Hatch told the Fox affiliate in Salt Lake City yesterday:

"Let's be honest about it, in the First Amendment, religious freedom, religious expression, that really express matters to the Constitution. So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so. The only question is, are they being insensitive to those who suffered the loss of loved ones? We know there are Muslims killed on 9/11 too and we know it's a great religion.... But as far as their right to build that mosque, they have that right.

"I just think what's made this country great is we have religious freedom. That's not the only thing, but it's one of the most important things in the Constitution. [...]

"There's a question of whether it's too close to the 9/11 area, but it's a few blocks away, it isn't right there.... And there's a huge, I think, lack of support throughout the country for Islam to build that mosque there, but that should not make a difference if they decide to do it. I'd be the first to stand up for their rights."

Good for Hatch. It's easy to defend First Amendment principles when it's popular; one actually has to believe in First Amendment principles to defend them when the political winds blow in the other direction.

I'd add, by the way, that Hatch is the first high-profile Republican official to offer a strong endorsement of the Park51 proposal. My suspicion is, he's also likely the last.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

THE GREAT GALLUP FREAK-OUT.... Two national generic-ballot polls were published within 48 hours of one another -- Newsweek showed Democrats and Republicans tied at 45% each, while Gallup showed Republicans leading Democrats by 10, 51% to 41%. Guess which one is causing a massive freak-out in the political world?

Pollsters offered some more glum news for Democrats on Monday night: Republicans have their biggest lead ever on the question of which party voters would support for Congress. Gallup's "generic ballot" - a staple of election prognostication - shows Republicans with a double-digit advantage.

In the latest Gallup polling, 51 percent of registered voters say they would vote for the GOP candidate in their district if the election were held today; 41 percent say they would support the Democrat. That represents the biggest such lead for the Republicans in Gallup polls back to 1942, and it marks the fourth straight week they have had the edge on the Democrats, who are seeking to retain control of the House and Senate.

I suppose the historic nature of the result -- it's the GOP's biggest margin since the dawn of time -- is fueling interest, while Newsweek's even split seems less interesting.

But I'd recommend caution when it comes to the Gallup numbers -- not because I'm discouraged by the results, but because the poll itself strikes me as dubious.

Remember, about a month ago, Gallup's generic-ballot showed Democrats jumping out to an unexpected six-point lead -- and I cautioned at the time that overjoyed Dems were almost certainly overreacting to an erratic poll. I have the same concerns now. (And I'd have the same reaction if, a month from now, the same poll showed the GOP's lead evaporating.)

Looking back over the last several months, Gallup's generic-ballot has been all over the place, with no real rationale. In April, the GOP built up a big lead, which then disappeared. In late May, the same thing happened. In mid-June, it happened again. Then in July, Democrats built up their biggest lead of the year, only to see it quickly fade. This week, the results have swung back in the GOP's direction.

The point is, erratic polls with bizarre swings are necessarily suspect. No other pollster is showing these wild fluctuations. Indeed, no other pollster shows Republicans with a double-digit lead. And while we're at it, it's worth emphasizing that Gallup's generic-ballot poll isn't even a generic-ballot poll in the traditional sense -- it's "aggregated data" from tracking polls.

I'm not suggesting that Dems should just ignore discouraging data -- burying one's head in the sand is never wise. For that matter, even if the political world discounts the Gallup data altogether, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the GOP has all the momentum with two months left before the midterms. If I had to lay odds, I'd say the smart money is clearly on the GOP taking at least the House.

But I still question the value of Gallup's results, and think the political world freak-out is an overreaction.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 30, 2010

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Afghanistan: "Two separate roadside bomb attacks in Afghanistan killed seven U.S. service members in southern Afghanistan Monday, NATO said. The deaths bring to 14 the number of U.S. troops killed in action in eastern and southern Afghanistan over the past three days."

* On a related note: "Despite the presence of almost 150,000 foreign troops, violence across Afghanistan is at its worst since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001."

* Biden in Iraq: "Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. arrived in Baghdad on Monday to commemorate the official end of the United States combat mission and meet with Iraqi political leaders, who have yet to form a government more than five months after the March election."

* New Orleans: "President Obama on Sunday sought to assure this city, battered by two catastrophic disasters in five years, that federal efforts to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina would not waver even as the city struggles with the aftermath of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."

* Consumer spending edges higher: "Americans spent last month at the fastest pace in four months, helped by a jump in demand for automobiles. Consumer spending rose 0.4 percent in July after three lackluster months, the Commerce Department said Monday. Spending fell 0.1 percent in April, rose a tiny 0.1 percent in May and was flat in June."

* Pakistan's flooding crisis also means a food crisis.

* Keeping an eye on Hurricane Earl.

* Agent Orange and veterans: a 40-Year wait.

* We know a fair amount about Bush-era scandals, corruption, fraud, and mismanagement -- but imagine what we'd know if the Bush White House hadn't "lost" so many officials' emails.

* I've been meaning to highlight Jane Mayer's piece on David and Charles Koch, right-wing billionaires going to great lengths, mainly through their "Americans for Prosperity" outfit, to finance Republican efforts in 2010. Frank Rich's column on this yesterday was terrific. (Pay particular attention why comparisons to George Soros are misguided.)

* Daniel Luzer and Justin Peters explore the disclosure/ethics issues involved with the Washington Post's ownership of Kaplan, and its reporting on education policy.

* Fox News had a guest on this morning who believes teen pregnancies stem from lessons on evolution. He was serious.

* And The Onion wins the week with "Local Man Knows Everything He Needs To Know About Muslims." (On a related note, The Onion probably needs to interview the perpetually silly James Tarnato, whose work often defies parody.)

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

'OUT THERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY'.... Last week, in the midst of several discouraging economic developments, White House officials recognized the need to sharpen its message a bit. They just weren't sure when.

Yesterday, President Obama was in New Orleans for the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Tomorrow is an Oval Office address on Iraq. Later this week, the focus will be on Middle East peace talks. One official told ABC late last week, "We know he needs to be out there to talk about the economy next week. We haven't yet figured out the way he's going to do that."

So, this afternoon, the president appeared in the Rose Garden to talk up economic policy in general, and chide Republicans for blocking the small-business-incentives bill in specific.

On his first workday back at the White House after a 10-day Martha's Vineyard vacation and a trip to New Orleans on Sunday, Mr. Obama addressed the nation's mounting economic anxieties in brief remarks from the Rose Garden. With the unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent, and the economic recovery all but stalled, he spent part of the morning huddled with his economic advisers.

While he said he and his team are "hard at work in identifying additional measures that could make a difference" -- including extending middle-class tax cuts that are set to expire this year, investing more in clean energy and in infrastructure rebuilding -- the president's most urgent call was directed at members of Congress, who return to work next week.

"This bill has been languishing in the Senate for four months, held up by a partisan minority that won't even allow it to go to a vote. That makes no sense," Mr. Obama said, referring to the small business initiative. He added, "Holding this bill hostage is directly detrimental to our economic growth."

That last point was bolstered by a new USA Today report, which the president made reference to, explaining that about 1,000 small businesses are ready to expand, but are waiting for Senate Republicans to stop playing petty games.

Following up on what we talked about yesterday, though, is there any reason to think the White House may put forward any kind of new economic policies and/or stimulus and/or jobs bill? It's hard to say exactly -- there almost certainly won't be one, ambitious package on the way, but Obama raised the specter of "additional measures."

Specifically, the president said, "[A]s Congress prepares to return to session, my economic team is hard at work in identifying additional measures that could make a difference in both promoting growth and hiring in the short term, and increasing our economy's competitiveness in the long term -- steps like extending the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire this year; redoubling our investment in clean energy and R&D; rebuilding more of our infrastructure for the future; further tax cuts to encourage businesses to put their capital to work creating jobs here in the United States. And I'll be addressing these proposals in further detail in the days and weeks to come."

I wouldn't necessarily interpret this as "new economic plan on the way," but it's something to keep an eye on.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

COURT SMACKS DOWN CUCCINELLI.... Shortly after taking office, Virginia's comically right-wing attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, decided his time would be well spent launching a witch hunt against a climate scientist named Michael Mann. Even for a Republican official known for pushing the activist envelope, this was pretty offensive.

Mann was a scholar at the University of Virginia from 1999 to 2005, before leaving to run Penn State's Earth System Science Center. But in the wake of the "Climategate" nonsense, Cuccinelli decided to launch an investigation, demanding "a sweeping swath of documents," to see if Mann had manipulated climate data during his U-Va. tenure. (some of which was funded through state grants).

Was there any reason to suspect Mann of fraudulent research? Well, no. But Cuccinelli wanted to poke around anyway, just to see what he could come up with. Today, a Virginia judge told The Cooch that he's on the wrong track.

An Albemarle County Circuit Court judge has set aside a subpoena issued by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to the University of Virginia seeking documents related to the work of climate scientist and former university professor Michael Mann.

Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli can investigate whether fraud has occurred in university grants, as the attorney general had contended, but ruled that Cuccinelli's subpoena failed to state a "reason to believe" that Mann had committed fraud.

The ruling is a major blow for Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic.....

The judge also explained to Cuccinelli that four of the five grants Mann relied on for his research were federally funded, and therefore out of bounds for the state A.G.'s investigation. Cuccinelli will reportedly try again, reworking his subpoena, while considering whether to appeal today's ruling.

Given the threat Cuccinelli's crusade posed to academic freedom, today's outcome is very good news. In a statement Mann said the judge's order "is a victory not just for me and the university, but for all scientists who live in fear that they may be subject to a politically-motivated witch hunt when their research findings prove inconvenient to powerful vested interests."

As for the bigger picture, I'd add that the list of Cuccinelli's other excesses is getting pretty long. Virginia's A.G. 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, and, of course temporarily added a modesty shield to Virginia's great seal.

And he's only been in office since January.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE RICK SCOTT'S RUNNING FOR THE WRONG OFFICE.... Shortly before Florida's gubernatorial primary, disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott (R) wanted voters to know one thing: he's deeply opposed to converting a shut-down clothing store in Manhattan into a community center. What does Florida's governor's office have to do with building permits in New York City? Literally nothing, but Scott nevertheless won the primary.

Now, Scott is transitioning to the general election, but his old habits haven't gone away. Pat Garofalo flags Scott's new message:

"Floridians want an answer: Will Alex Sink stand with Obama and let the Bush tax cuts expire, thereby increasing Floridians' taxes, or will she stand with taxpayers and demand Obama work to extend the Bush tax cuts?"

Scott has also touted his opposition to the Bush tax cuts on both national and local television.

And what does Florida's governor's office have to do with federal policymakers setting federal income tax rates? Literally nothing.

I know Scott is new to the world of public service, but this is pretty silly. Either he's deeply confused about the office he's seeking, or he's counting on voters not knowing the difference.

Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

WAITING PATIENTLY FOR THE 'GROUND ZERO CHURCH' OUTRAGE.... A radical Christian preacher in Florida named Bill Keller has an idea. Apparently, what lower Manhattan really needs is a "9-11 Christian Center at Ground Zero" that would -- as luck would have it -- be two city blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood.

Justin Elliott reports today that Keller will start preaching two blocks south of Ground Zero this weekend, and hopes to raise $8 million for his proposed building.

To get a sense of where Keller is coming from, consider his project's website, which calls Islam a religion of "hate and death" whose adherents will go to hell. It also says: "Islam is a wonderful religion... for PEDOPHILES!"

Keller is the same pastor who hosted a Birther infomercial that encouraged viewers to send him and a partner donations to advance the Birther cause. His Internet ministry explicitly calls President Obama the new Hitler. He calls homosexuality a perversion. And in 2008, he targeted presidential contender Mitt Romney for being Mormon with a campaign called "voting for Satan."

In short, if critics of the Park51 Islamic community center -- which is explicitly welcoming of all faiths -- truly believe that there is a "zone of solemnity" around ground zero (as Gov. Pat Quinn put it), they should be horrified at Keller's 9/11 Christian Center.

Critics of Park51 insist their opposition is not motivated by anti-Muslim animus. This would seem to offer quite an opportunity, then, for even-handed disapproval. Indeed, it seems like a no-brainer.

Here we have a radical figure, who's lashed out wildly at Americans, intending to build a controversial religious center two blocks from Ground Zero. We don't know where his money will come from, or what kind of zealotry will spread from the building.

I'm entirely comfortable with Park51 and the 9/11 Christian Center being built. If opponents of the former aren't motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, then the latter should be denounced, too, right?

Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

RYAN'S RADICAL ROADMAP FINDS SOME GOP BACKING.... Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) wants Republican lawmakers and candidates to show some courage and endorse Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) "Roadmap for America's Future." So does Jonah Goldberg.

For his part, Ryan, the far-right lawmaker who'll head the House Budget Committee if Republicans take the House, knows he's offered a fairly radical budget plan, and recently conceded his colleagues who agree with him are too nervous to say so: "They're talking to their pollsters and their pollsters are saying, 'Stay away from this.'"

Amanda Terkel reports today, however, that some aren't staying away from this.

-- Martha Roby, AL-2: On June 4, Roby put out a statement criticizing Democrats for refusing to move forward with a budget proposal. "The American people deserve better. They deserve solutions," said Roby. "Conservative leaders like Rep. Paul Ryan are offering real solutions to cut wasteful spending, such as canceling unspent TARP and stimulus funds, cutting non-defense spending back to 2008 levels, and reducing the government workforce. I endorse these solutions and other common sense approaches to start getting our fiscal house back in order." Roby is one of the National Republican Campaign Committee's "Young Guns," the party's top new prospects.

-- Francisco Canseco, TX-23: In a video posted on July 13, Canesco told a questioner that he supports Ryan's alternative budget proposal. Canseco is also one of the NRCC's Young Guns.

-- Andy Barr, KY-6: In a July 15 radio appearance on WVLK-AM 590, a caller asked Barr whether "we can count on you to support the Republican budget." Barr responded, "Yeah. I mean, absolutely. I'm not in Congress now, of course, and I don't have an opportunity to support a particular budget, but that's certainly preferable -- that budget, a leaner budget -- is certainly preferable to the ones that have been offered by the President and the Speaker of the House."

-- Dan Lungren, CA-3:Lungren is already in Congress, but he hasn't yet co-sponsored Ryan's plan. On Aug. 11, Lungren told Ryan that the roadmap was "the best long-term look at trying to deal with our fiscal insanity right now that anybody has done." He refused to say, however, whether he would officially sign on to the bill before the election.

This is, of course, exactly what Democrats have been hoping for.

If you're just joining us, Paul Ryan's "roadmap" is a right-wing fantasy, slashing taxes on the rich while raising taxes for everyone else. The plan calls for privatizing Social Security and gutting Medicare, and fails miserably in its intended goal -- cutting the deficit. As Paul Krugman recently explained, the Ryan plan "is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future."

When Republican candidates embrace this plan to radically transform governmental institutions and Americans' way of life, as these handful have, they're endorsing a Republican vision of governing more extreme than anything we've seen in the modern political era.

That should not only be a crucial component of their campaigns, it reinforces the need for other Republican candidates to state their position on the "roadmap." The question for every GOP hoping to be in Congress next year is simple and straightforward: "The leading Republican on the budget has presented a bold proposal. It's been touted by the Republican leadership, and endorsed by several Republican candidates. Do you agree with that plan or not?"

It's not unreasonable to think voters should have an answer before they head to the polls in November.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

ENERGIZING MORE THAN JUST THE GOP BASE, CONT'D.... NPR reported last week that experts in counter-terrorism believe the controversy surrounding the Park51 proposal may play "right into the hands of radical extremists." Today, Newsweek finds the same phenomenon.

"By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor," Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) "It's providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support."

America's enemies in Afghanistan are delighted by the vehement public opposition to the proposed "Ground Zero mosque." The backlash against the project has drawn the heaviest e-mail response ever on jihadi Web sites, Zabihullah claims -- far bigger even than France's ban on burqas earlier this year. (That was big, he recalls: "We received many e-mails asking for advice on how Muslims should react to the hijab ban, and how they can punish France.") This time the target is America itself. "We are getting even more messages of support and solidarity on the mosque issue and questions about how to fight back against this outrage."

Zabihullah also claims that the issue is such a propaganda windfall -- so tailor-made to show how "anti-Islamic" America is -- that it now heads the list of talking points in Taliban meetings with fighters, villagers, and potential recruits. "We talk about how America tortures with waterboarding, about the cruel confinement of Muslims in wire cages in Guantanamo, about the killing of innocent women and children in air attacks -- and now America gives us another gift with its street protests to prevent a mosque from being built in New York," Zabihullah says. "Showing reality always makes the best propaganda."

"The more mosques you stop," Zabihullah predicted, "the more jihadis we will get."

I saw Jon Stewart had a segment last week, arguing that we just shouldn't care what guys like this have to say. Americans should do what we think is best, and not obsess over how terrorists may or may not react. I'm tempted to agree.

But the tenor and context of these debates really does affect our national security interests. The Taliban, al Qaeda, and assorted terrorist networks are going to try to recruit followers anyway, and they're going to keep targeting us anyway, but there's nothing wrong with the United States making things harder for them. We can't base our judgments on how some monster might exploit a decision, but if we can honor our principles, stay true to American ideals, and deny the Taliban a victory at the same time, then maybe it's an approach with merit.

Our actions reverberate. When we deny Americans their rights, because some decide they don't like those Americans' religious beliefs, we're not just breaking faith with who we are, we're broadcasting a mistake to the world.

Adam Serwer explained, "The kinetic aspects of the fight against terrorism aren't going to hinge on whether or not the Park51 project gets built, but the larger war of ideas is one where the U.S. can't afford to lose any more ground than it already has."

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

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 held its Senate primaries over the weekend. As expected, incumbent Gov. Joe Manchin easily won the Democratic nod, and will face John Raese, who also cruised in the Republican primary.

* Speaking of weekend contests, Louisiana held its Republican Senate primary, which, not too long ago, looked like it might be competitive. It wasn't -- scandal-plagued incumbent David Vitter crushed former state Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor, 87% to 8%. (No, that's not a typo.) Vitter will face Rep. Charlie Melancon, who cruised past minimal opposition in the Democratic primary.

* As of last week, spending on campaign ads has so far totaled $395 million for this cycle. At this point in the last midterm elections, it was $286 million.

* In Vermont's five-way Democratic gubernatorial primary, a final tally state shows Sen. Peter Shumlin narrowly ahead, but 0.9% of the vote separates him from the second and third place candidates. State Sen. Doug Racine, just 197 votes behind Shumlin, requested a recount late Friday.

* Late last week, Joe Miller, the apparent Republican Senate nominee in Alaska, compared incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski to a prostitute. Miller, soon after, blamed an aide.

* Patriot Majority, an independent expenditure outfit, has a pretty hard-hitting ad targeting Sharron Angle's (R) Senate campaign in Nevada.

* Speaking of Nevada, the latest Mason-Dixon poll of the state's gubernatorial race shows Brian Sandoval (R) with a big lead over Rory Reid (D), 53% to 31%.

* In New Mexico's gubernatorial race, an Albuquerque Journal poll shows Susana Martinez (R) with a six-point lead over Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (D), 45% to 39%. Denish's connection to Gov. Bill Richardson (D), once considered a positive, has become a drag on her support as Richardson's approval rating drops.

* And in exceedingly silly 2012 news, former right-wing U.N. Ambassador John Bolton hasn't ruled out a presidential campaign.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

THE SPEED-BUMP ON THE ROAD TO BECK'S RELIGIOUS AGENDA.... The purpose of Saturday's rally at the Lincoln Memorial wasn't exactly clear, but it seemed to have something to do with religion. By one account, the event was "overtly religious, filled with gospel music and speeches that were more like sermons."

"America," Glenn Beck told attendees, "today begins to turn back to God."

Whose God? Well, that's a little trickier. Christian Newswire seemed torn -- they like Beck's hysterical political message, but have real problems with his chosen faith tradition.

Glenn Beck promotes a false gospel. However, many of his political ideas can help America.

Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Mormonism is not a Christian denomination but a cult of Christianity.

The country needs to get back to the simplicity of the Bible. The reason our country is in bad shape is that ministers for the most part do not share the truth. Many endorse false gospels including Mormonism.

Faiz Shakir added that this sentiment isn't isolated.

Brannon Howse, a conservative writer and founder of Worldview Weekend, said, "While I applaud and agree with many of Glenn Beck's conservative and constitutional views, that does not give me or any other Bible-believing Christian justification to compromise Biblical truth by spiritually joining Beck."

"Jesus Christ's Church has universally rejected Mormonism's Anti-Trinitarian theology and its claim that mortals may become God," David Shedlock, an evangelical blogger, wrote on a FreedomWorks forum earlier this month. "Beck asks Christian leaders to 'put differences aside,' but Beck himself daily peppers his broadcasts with Mormon distinctives because he cannot keep his beliefs to himself."

It creates an interesting religio-political dynamic that's worth watching. As we talked about over the weekend, Tea Partiers and related right-wing activists have often been split, just below the surface, between competing factions -- largely secular libertarians who focus on fiscal issues and the scope of government vs. religious-right-style theocrats who are still inclined to fight a culture war. Saturday's gathering seemed to suggest the latter contingent might have the edge.

But then there's the other fissure -- theocrats comfortable with a Mormon's leadership role in their so-called "movement," and theocrats who appreciate Beck's madness, but not his LDS membership.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

EXPECT LIMITLESS, RELENTLESS WITCH HUNTS.... When thinking about what to expect from a Republican takeover of Congress, different scenarios come to mind. Sure, any hopes of advancing meaningful legislation are effectively off the table, and the prospect of a government shutdown seems fairly realistic.

But it's the endless investigations that would get tiresome. Politico reported the other day that Republicans "are planning a wave of committee investigations targeting the White House and Democratic allies if they win back the majority."

Paul Krugman explained today that it's "going to be very, very ugly."

...I'm not talking about the rage of the excluded and the dispossessed: Tea Partiers are relatively affluent, and nobody is angrier these days than the very, very rich. Wall Street has turned on Mr. Obama with a vengeance: last month Steve Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman of the Blackstone Group, the private equity giant, compared proposals to end tax loopholes for hedge fund managers with the Nazi invasion of Poland.

And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage. Jane Mayer's new article in The New Yorker about the superrich Koch brothers and their war against Mr. Obama has generated much-justified attention, but as Ms. Mayer herself points out, only the scale of their effort is new: billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife waged a similar war against Bill Clinton.

Meanwhile, the right-wing media are replaying their greatest hits. In the 1990s, Mr. Limbaugh used innuendo to feed anti-Clinton mythology, notably the insinuation that Hillary Clinton was complicit in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as we've just seen, he's doing his best to insinuate that Mr. Obama is a Muslim. Again, though, there's an extra level of craziness this time around: Mr. Limbaugh is the same as he always was, but now seems tame compared with Glenn Beck.

And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to be found. [...]

It will be an ugly scene, and it will be dangerous, too. The 1990s were a time of peace and prosperity; this is a time of neither. In particular, we're still suffering the after-effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, and we can't afford to have a federal government paralyzed by an opposition with no interest in helping the president govern. But that's what we're likely to get.

I'd just add one related thought. The Politico piece on the expected witch hunts, highlighting right-wing lawmakers "quietly gearing up for a possible season of subpoenas," offered a list of "six possible committee investigations if Republicans take back the House in November." The possibilities are probably predictable to those who follow current events: a job offer to Joe Sestak, rescuing the auto industry, the New Black Panther Party, ACORN, etc.

That's no doubt accurate, but it's missing a relevant detail: some of the likely investigations will cover stuff that's just made-up. In the Clinton era, House Republicans held hearings on garbage that was manufactured out of thin air, and subpoenas were issued just for the sake of issuing subpoenas.

There's every reason to believe it would be worse in 2011 and 2012.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

SMALL BUSINESSES WAIT FOR GOP TO STOP PLAYING GAMES.... A month ago yesterday, there was reason for optimism on the small-business bill pending in the Senate. The aid package included tax breaks, new incentives, and an attempt to expand credit through a lending program that utilizes local banks, and with 59 supporters, the Democratic majority only needed one GOP vote to overcome yet another Republican filibuster.

They didn't get that vote. Shortly before the Senate broke for its recess, Republicans threw a bit of a tantrum over the number of amendments they were allowed to consider, and unanimously blocked the chamber from voting on the bill.

The consequences of GOP game-playing are as discouraging as they are obvious.

Small businesses have put hiring, supply buying and real estate expansion on hold as they wait out the vote on a small-business-aid bill that stalled in the Senate earlier this summer.

The much-debated legislation offers tax breaks and waived loan fees. But it also comes with more divisive components, such as a $30 billion fund that would help community banks give loans to small businesses.... Many small businesses had hoped the legislation would pass the Senate by the end of July. With two weeks left until Congress reconvenes, those firms are in a holding pattern.

"I'm still waiting for Congress to sign off on the bill," says Amarjit Kaur, who runs a convenience store and gas station in Wood Village, Ore. She leases her property but has a chance to buy it. With the waived-fee provision, Kaur says she could save about $35,000 on her pending loan.

Keep in mind, the bill doesn't add to the deficit. The only reason Republicans blocked a vote was because they demanded that they be able to offer amendments to the small-business package that have nothing to do with small businesses -- including measures related to border security and Bush tax cuts. They don't really expect the amendments to pass, but GOP leaders hoped (a) that the votes would put Dems in an awkward spot; and (b) the process of considering them would take up more floor time, and make it impossible to consider other legislation this year.

The Democratic leadership balked, so the vote on the bill was put off. And as a result, about a thousand small businesses are ready to expand, but are instead just sitting there, waiting for our political system and the Republican Party to be less ridiculous. (Whether the GOP did this deliberately, worried that small-business expansion before the elections might help the economy and interfere with Republican election plans, is unclear.)

Often, when the political world considers the GOP's scandalous obstructionism on Capitol Hill, we're reminded of an exasperatingly dysfunctional policymaking process. But it's worth remembering from time to time that the nonsense carries with it real-world consequences.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

ANGLE EVEN OPPOSED KATRINA RELIEF FUNDS.... In September 2005, with the nation still stunned by the devastation in Louisiana caused by Hurricane Katrina, the Senate took up a $62 billion package in relief funds for the region. The GOP-led chamber -- the Republicans enjoyed a 55-seat Senate majority at the time -- approved the aid bill unanimously.

Had Nevada's Sharron Angle been there, that would not have been the case. She boasted at the time, in the midst of a failed congressional campaign, that she would have voted "no" on post-Katrina relief. Jon Ralston has the story.

During an interview on conservative KLAV radio in 2005, which she once had up on her site, Angle invoked Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, who she claimed said he was voting "no" because the Katrina money was not carefully accounted for. [...]

But Pence actually voted FOR the $62 billion. His "yea" is right there in the congressional record after someone named Pelosi.

The day after the Sept. 8, 2005, vote, even House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told The Wall Street Journal: "It's too important to play politics with. It's too important to second-guess."

I realize the Katrina crisis was five years ago, and for some in Nevada, the disaster has probably faded from view. But Angle's response to the worst national disaster in American history says a great deal about her priorities and values, and should signal what kind of senator she'd be.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

THE CRAZY CAUCUS WELCOMES A NEW MEMBER.... Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Rob Johnson, and Pat Toomey help compose one of the nuttiest slate of extreme Senate candidates we've seen in a very long time, but there can be no doubt that Joe Miller's application to the Crazy Caucus has already been approved.

Miller, of course, provided one of the year's most unexpected results last week, apparently beating incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's Republican Senate primary. (The official results aren't available just yet, but by all accounts, Miller is favored to prevail once absentee ballots are counted.) If he is the nominee, Miller's extremism pushes the ideological envelope in new directions.

It's easy to check off most of the routine garbage -- Miller has birther tendencies, demands the elimination of all abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), wants to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, rejects global warming science, wants to "transition out" Social Security, and is eyeing cabinet agencies for elimination, including the Department of Education.

But it's his constitutional beliefs that help set Miller apart. In July, he rejected the very idea of unemployment benefits, insisting that they're not "constitutionally authorized." This does, by the way, make him more radical than Angle and Paul, who've denounced extended aid to the jobless, but haven't rejected the policy itself as illegal.

Yesterday, on CBS's Face the Nation, Miller went even further. (TP has the video)

BOB SCHIEFFER: You have also taken some fairly controversial, some would say, very extreme positions. First, you say you want to phase out Medicare. You want to privatize Social Security. I have to say there are a lot of people in Alaska who are on Medicare and are getting Social Security. Isn't that position going to be a problem for you in the election, in this general election?

JOE MILLER: Well, yeah, and I would suggest to you that if one thing said the Constitution is extreme then you would also think that the founders are extreme. We just simply want to get back to basics, get -- restore essentially the constitutional foundation of the country, and that means the federal government becoming less onerous, less involved in every -- basically every item of our lives. And what that means is there does have to be some transition.

It's hard to interpret this as anything but Miller characterizing Social Security and Medicare as being at odds with the Constitution -- a position that positions him on the far fringes of American political thought.

I don't want to get too far ahead of the official results -- he's ahead, but there's a chance Miller may not win the primary -- but it's worth pondering whether this guy will actually become a United States senator. At this point, he's the frontrunner.

A new survey from Public Policy Polling shows the right-wing lawyer leading Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams, 47% to 39%. It's worth emphasizing, though, that this offers yet another example in which the radicalized GOP base has created a competitive race where there would otherwise not be one -- Miller's lead is in the single digits, while a Murkowski primary win would have made this race unwinnable for Democrats.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

POTUS GETS BACK TO WORK.... President Obama sat down with NBC's Brian Williams yesterday, covering a fair amount of ground over the course of 22 minutes. Before I saw the interview, I saw a headline: "Obama blasts lies, disinformation." That's sort of true, but it's not quite how I'd characterize the discussion.

After talking at some length about the problems afflicting the Gulf Coast in general and Louisiana in particular, Williams noted public opinion polls showing significant numbers of Americans questioning the president's faith and birthplace. Obama more or less just shrugged off the nonsense. "The facts are the facts," he said, adding, "I'm not going to be worrying too much about whatever rumors are floating on out there. If I spend all my time chasing after that, then I wouldn't get much done.... I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead."

The president, in other words, treated this is a silly, trivial distraction, which it is.

Asked about the right-wing rally on Saturday, Obama acknowledge that folks are free to "exercise their rights" to speak out, just like everyone else. But the president added that trying times often lead some segments of the population to be susceptible to dubious appeals, so "it's not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country."

As for the economy, the president gave no reason to think any new, major economic initiatives will be unveiled anytime soon, but nevertheless expressed optimism about the U.S. recovery. I wish I shared the optimism.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 29, 2010

THERE IS NO SECRET 'BIG ECONOMIC INITIATIVE,' BUT THERE COULD BE.... The lead New York Times editorial today begins, "If President Obama has a big economic initiative up his sleeve, as he hinted recently, now would be a good time to let the rest of us in on it."

I agree with the latter half, but I'm not sure White House has hinted about any upcoming economic plan. I'd love to be wrong, but the evidence seems to suggest the president and his team are prepared to move forward with existing policy, coupled with some small-but-worthwhile measures still pending in Congress. The "hint" came on Wednesday, when we learned that Obama and his economic team held a conference call to discuss "the next steps to keep the economy growing," but a closer look suggested those "next steps" are limited to the existing tax-rate plan and the bill with small-business incentives.

Indeed, Jake Tapper reported Friday that the president's team believes, under the circumstances, "there aren't any more major initiatives the administration will push in further attempts to revive the sputtering economy."

With this in mind, the NYT editorial board has some suggestions for the president to consider.

Mr. Obama ... needs to inspire Americans who have been ground down by the economic crisis and Washington's small-bore sniping. He needs to rally the nation around a big idea -- a project that is worth sacrificing for, worth paying for, worth working for. One that lets them know that there is more ahead than just a return to a status quo of lopsided growth in which corporate profits surge while jobs and incomes lag.

That mission could be the "21st century infrastructure," that Mr. Obama mentioned on a multi-city trip this month, "not just roads and bridges, but faster Internet access and high-speed rail." It could be energy independence, with high-tech green jobs and a real chance for addressing global warming. Either of the above would make sense, economically and politically.

Mr. Obama and his economic team had clearly hoped for an economic rebound in time for the midterm elections. They are not going to get it. The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small. Standing back is not doing the country or his party any good. We believe Americans are ready for hard truths and big ideas.

Substantively, this sounds right to me. But when it comes to messaging, I'd go just a little further.

If the president were to come out tomorrow to announce an ambitious infrastructure/energy/stimulus plan, focused solely on job creation, Republicans would immediately denounce it as fiscally irresponsible -- we couldn't possibly increase the deficit to pay for this, they'd say.

But in many respects, recent developments have strengthened the hand of stimulus proponents, and it's a dynamic the Obama White House could take advantage of. For one thing, recent polling suggests Americans much prefer investing in job creation to focusing on deficit reduction. I'm suggesting, then, that the president and his party, shortly before the elections, push a popular idea. In theory, that shouldn't require too much arm-twisting.

For another, literally every member of the House Republican leadership -- Minority Leader, Minority Whip, and Conference Chairman -- just this month argued publicly that the economy is more important than the deficit, at least right now. They were talking about defending tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans, but the underlying point was the same -- given the fragile state of the economy, growth and jobs matter more than deficit reduction.

So here's a radical idea: why not call their bluff? If GOP leaders are willing to increase the deficit to improve the economy, the White House can take them up on their offer -- but take every penny Republicans want to devote to tax cuts and invest that money in job creation.

It creates an either/or for the political world and voters to consider. Both sides plan to increase the deficit, so that's no longer the issue. The question is whether it's better to devote the resources to tax cuts for the very wealthy, or use the same resources on infrastructure, energy, and stimulus.

A jobs agenda vs. a Billionaire Bailout.

I realize that the likelihood of Congress passing anything in this environment is, to put it charitably, remote. If Republicans aren't willing to let the Senate vote on extended unemployment benefits, and House Republicans were willing to lay off tens of thousands of school teachers, then winning a vote on job creation is almost certainly impossible.

But why not have the fight anyway? Why not force Republicans to fight against a jobs bill two months before the elections? Why not let the public see exactly what both sides want to do to give the economy a boost, and determine which is preferable?

Why not ask voters which they prefer -- a jobs agenda or a Billionaire Bailout?

Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)

Bookmark and Share

THE KIND OF 'QUESTION' YOU'LL ONLY HEAR ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY.... Fox News' Chris Wallace featured guest this morning was Fox News' Glenn Beck -- there's something wrong with this incestuous picture -- and the interview eventually covered the activist/rodeo-clown/snake-oil salesman's presidential ambitions.

Wallace brought up the subject, noting "blog traffic" about a "Beck-Palin" ticket. Beck dismissed it out of hand, saying "Not a chance.... I have no desire to be president of the United States, zero desire. I don't think that I would be electable and there are far too many people who are far smarter than me to be president."

But Wallace didn't drop the subject:

"When you've got hundreds of thousands of people showing up to see you, Glenn, that's something, that's worth something... that's people putting their trust in you."

Yes, the host of a Sunday morning public-affairs show, someone with decades of experience in American journalism, seemed to be urging a deranged media personality to consider a national campaign.

Putting aside the dubious nature of the "hundreds of thousands" claim, I thought it was Chris Wallace's job to help explore whether people should "put their trust" in someone like Glenn Beck. Somehow, "Fox News Sunday" didn't get to that one.

When the lines are blurred, if not eliminated altogether, between activism, journalism, celebrity, and commercialism, standards cease to exist.

Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

WORDS OF WISDOM FROM BRODER.... From time to time, I note my frustration with David Broder columns, so I suppose it's only fair to give credit where credit is due. His piece today was actually quite wise.

Broder noted that he couldn't make it to Beckapalooza yesterday, but nevertheless shared his memories of having been at the same location 47 years ago, covering the civil rights march for the now-defunct Washington Star.

The columnist noted that, in 1963, there was quite a bit of uncertainty about what to expect that day -- in the media, in the Kennedy administration, throughout "white establishment Washington" -- knowing that protests can "get out of hand" sometimes.

Broder, a 33-year-old beat reporter at the time, quickly realized "that the mood of the day would be fellowship and the spirit one of brotherhood." Attendees, he found, "came to affirm their solidarity and, if you will, their humanity."

Even before a word was spoken -- let alone the eloquent words that have echoed down through history -- it had become absolutely evident from the people themselves that achieving civil rights would be the way to heal, not damage, the country.

I went back to the Star wondering what it was we had been afraid of. And I've remembered this many times since, when people have tried to teach us to fear certain things, such as someone else's marriage or place of worship.

Well said.

Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

BIGOTS TORCH RELIGIOUS SITE IN TENNESSEE.... Opponents of Park51 in New York like to maintain the pretense that their anti-Muslim animus is related directly to 9/11. It's not the community center they're worried about, the argument goes, but rather the proximity to the site of the fallen Twin Towers.

That is, of course, nonsense, as is evident when we see fierce opposition to Muslim Americans elsewhere.

Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb.

Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson.

Special Agent Andy Anderson of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CBS News that the fire destroyed one piece of construction equipment and damaged three others. Gas was poured over the equipment to start the fire, Anderson said.

"No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don't want it. I don't want them here," Evy Summers told the local CBS affiliate. "Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity."

Saleh Sbenaty, a member of the center's planning committee and a professor of engineering technology at Middle Tennessee State University, noted that Murfreesboro's Muslim Americans have been part of the community for 30 years, largely without incident. But the proposed center has apparently driven local bigots to violence.

Glenn Greenwald, who originally flagged the story, explained, "The arsonists undoubtedly will be happy to tell you how much they hate Terrorism. And how there's a War on Christianity underway in the U.S. The harm from these actions are not merely the physical damage they cause, but the well-grounded fear it imposes on a minority of the American population. If you launch a nationwide, anti-Islamic campaign in Lower Manhattan based on the toxic premise that Muslims generally are responsible for 9/11 -- and spend a decade expanding American wars on one Muslim country after the next -- this is the inevitable, and obviously dangerous, outcome."

Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

A SHIFT FROM THE SECULAR?.... Almost immediately after Tea Party groups started organizing events last year, there's been an underlying tension between two main contingents. A secular libertarian-minded faction emerged, which focuses almost exclusively on fiscal issues and the size of government. The other is a more religious-right-style bloc, with an emphasis on more socially conservative issues.

There have been simmering tensions between the two for quite a while, but if yesterday was any indication, one side seems to be edging ahead. I still have no idea what, exactly, the far-right zealots actually want, but it now seems to have something to do with religion.

An enormous and impassioned crowd rallied at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, summoned by Glenn Beck, a conservative broadcaster who called for a religious rebirth in America at the site where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech 47 years ago to the day.

"Something that is beyond man is happening," Mr. Beck said in opening the event as the crowd thronged near the memorial grounds. "America today begins to turn back to God." [...]

[T]he program was distinctly different from most Tea Party rallies. While Tea Party groups have said they want to focus on fiscal conservatism and not risk alienating people by talking about religion or social issues, the rally on Saturday was overtly religious, filled with gospel music and speeches that were more like sermons.

Mr. Beck imbued his remarks on Saturday and at events the night before with references to God and a need for a religious revival.

This wasn't a conservative message with religious appeals sprinkled in for effect; it was the other way around. Indeed, Beck and his cohorts laid it on thick. (That Beck is a Mormon -- a faith many Christian evangelicals find theologically problematic -- may not have been widely known.)

But what I think bears watching is whether this shift in emphasis is what activists actually want. A few days ago, when former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman announced that he's gay, the NYT reported that the response was muted because the right is focused on the economy, not the culture war. If that's true, does the right want to be told that the new goal is to turn America "back to God"?

The Tea Partiers' agenda has always been rather fluid, but at a minimum, their priorities have tended to emphasize secular issues like taxes, debt, entitlements, and health care reform. These activists not only showed less of an interest in religious issues, in many instances, they deliberately ignored them. Indeed, for over a year, the theocratic elements of the conservative movement were openly disgusted by the shift in focus.

"There's a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative," the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer said in March. "The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage."

Yesterday didn't tell us much in the way of substance, but the rally certainly wasn't about taxes and the deficit. The question then becomes whether far-right activists are comfortable with being footsoldiers in Glenn Beck's army, bringing America to Glenn Beck's vision of God.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

JUST HOW BIG WERE THE 'THRONGS'?.... By all accounts, turnout at yesterday's far-right rally at the Lincoln Memorial was pretty strong, but that observation tends to lead to another question: how strong was it?

To underscore how tricky this is, consider two reports from McClatchy. One article said "tens of thousands" of people showed up for the rally, while another said "hundreds of thousands." Same news outlet, same day, covering the same story.

No wonder the National Park Service gave up on offering crowd estimates years ago.

As far as I can tell, the only outlet to publish an even vaguely-scientific headcount was CBS News.

An estimated 87,000 people attended a rally organized by talk-radio host and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck Saturday in Washington, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News.

The company AirPhotosLive.com based the attendance on aerial pictures it took over the rally....AirPhotosLive.com gave its estimate a margin of error of 9,000, meaning between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally. The photos used to make the estimate were taken at noon Saturday, which is when the company estimated was the rally's high point.

I imagine the right will find this number deeply unsatisfying, but a crowd of 87,000 people really isn't that bad. We are, after all, talking about a rally in late August, held by a media personality with declining ratings, which had no clear purpose or rationale.

It's not a tally that should necessarily strike fear in the hearts of the nation, but it's nothing for conservatives to be ashamed of, either. When 87,000 folks show up for an NFL game in Washington, it's considered pretty good turnout. It looks puny up against the numbers for, say, President Obama's inauguration last year, but the president enjoys far more support than a deranged media personality.

The problem, though, is that supporters exaggerated expectations in the wrong direction. Organizers told the National Park Service they expected 300,000 people to attend. The head of Freedom Works, an allied right-wing outfit, said on Friday he expected between 400,000 and 500,000.

One of these days, these folks will learn how to play the expectations game. For now, they're surprisingly bad at it.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 28, 2010

MOVEMENTS ARE ABOUT SOMETHING REAL…. I tried to keep up on today's festivities at the Lincoln Memorial, but as the dust settles, I find myself confused.

For a year and a half, we've seen rallies and town-hall shouting and attack ads and Fox News special reports. But I still haven't the foggiest idea what these folks actually want, other than to see like-minded Republicans winning elections. To be sure, I admire their passion, and I applaud their willingness to get involved in public affairs. If more Americans chose to take a more active role in the political process, the country would be better off and our democracy would be more vibrant.

But that doesn't actually tell us what these throngs of Americans are fighting for, exactly. I'm not oblivious to their cries; I'm at a loss to appreciate those cries on anything more than a superficial level.

This is about "freedom."

Well, I'm certainly pro-freedom, and as far as I can tell, the anti-freedom crowd struggles to win votes on Election Day. But can they be a little more specific? How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we're told, not that kind of freedom.

This is about a fight for American "liberties."

That sounds great, too. Who's against American "liberties"? But I'm still looking for some details. Might this include law-abiding American Muslims exercising their liberties and converting a closed-down clothing store into a community center? No, we're told, not those kinds of liberties.

This is about giving Americans who work hard and play by the rules more opportunities.

I'm all for that, too. But would these opportunities include the chance for hard-working Americans to bring their kids to the doctor if they get sick, even if the family can't afford insurance? No, we're told, not those kinds of opportunities.

This is about the values of the Founding Fathers.

I'm a big fan of the framers' generation, who created an extraordinary nation. But if we're honoring their values, would this include their steadfast commitment to the separation of church and state? No, we're told, not those values.

This is about patriotic Americans willing to make sacrifices for the good of their country.

That sounds reasonable; sacrifices can be honorable. But if we're talking about patriots willing to sacrifice, does that mean millionaires and billionaires can go back to paying '90s-era tax rates (you know, when the economy was strong)? No, we're told, not those kinds of sacrifices.

This is about a public that, at long last, wants to hear the truth from those who speak in their name.

What a great idea. Maybe that means we can hear the truth about global warming? About the fact that health care reform wasn't a socialized government takeover? About Social Security not going bankrupt? About how every court ruling conservatives don't like doesn't necessarily constitute "liberal judicial activism"? No, we're told, not those truths.

Movements -- real movements that make a difference and stand the test of time -- are about more than buzz words, television personalities, and self-aggrandizement. Change -- transformational change that sets nations on new courses -- is more than vague, shallow promises about "freedom."

Labor unions created a movement. Women's suffrage was a movement. The fight for civil rights is a movement. The ongoing struggle for equality for gays and lesbians is a movement. In each case, the grievance was as clear as the solution. There was no mystery as to what these patriots were fighting for. Their struggles and successes made the nation stronger, better, and more perfect.

The folks who gathered in D.C. today were awfully excited about something. The fact that it's not altogether obvious what that might be probably isn't a good sign.

Steve Benen 7:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (96)

Bookmark and Share

SMART POLICY, SMART POLITICS.... For much of 2009, polls pointed to a discouraging perception among Americans. Given a choice between economic growth and deficit reduction, large majorities -- over and over again -- said policymakers should focus on the latter. There was no real rationale for the majority of the public to be so wrong about this, but different pollsters in different times of the year found the same misguided result.

There were meaningful consequences for the public's wildly flawed priorities. As lawmakers on the Hill saw the polls, for example, the political appetite for investing in economic stimulus disappeared. Nervous Democrats started echoing Republicans about spending cuts, and key legislation wouldn't even get a fair hearing unless the bills were fully paid for. Under the economic circumstances, this was bizarre. But under the political circumstances, lawmakers felt like they had no other choice.

It's worth noting, then, that there's at least some evidence that attitudes have shifted in a more constructive direction. This question in the newly-released Newsweek poll bears special attention:

"Which one of the following do you think should have the higher priority for policy-makers in Washington right now:

37% Reducing the federal budget deficit
57% Federal spending to create jobs
6% Don't know

This strikes me as very encouraging. For many Americans, the "deficit" has become an amorphous concept that they've been conditioned to viscerally reject, and the polling last year suggested this knee-jerk reaction was so strong, deficit reduction was actually perceived as more important than the economy itself.

But the Newsweek poll -- yes, I know, it's only one poll -- wasn't close. Asked which should be a higher priority, the deficit or spending money on job creation, the latter won by 20 points.

Dems on the Hill are afraid to make economic investments because they expect a public backlash. They're nervous enough about the midterms and aren't in the mood to hear another round of "government spending is bad." But here's data showing that spending on job creation is actually quite popular. Republicans would respond by saying the deficit matters more, but that's not where the public is right now.

So why not borrow the money and invest in job creation? Like, immediately?

As for the rest of the poll, President Obama's approval rating is at 47%, the parties are tied on the generic ballot at 45%, and more than twice as many Americans blame Bush than Obama for the country's economic problems.

As for the fight over Bush-era tax rates, a 52% majority believes "Congress should allow the Bush tax cuts for persons in the top two percent income category to expire," while 38% support the Republican line.

I can understand Democratic panic about pushing an agenda that doesn't poll well. But when the majority is already with them, the apprehension is tougher to appreciate.

Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a push in some religious circles to allow publicly-financed, faith-based service groups to receive taxpayer money -- and still discriminate when hiring.

More than 100 religion-based organizations are protesting a provision in pending legislation that would prohibit them from receiving federal money if they consider a job applicant's religion when hiring.

In a letter sent Wednesday to all members of Congress, the groups contend that the provision would dilute protections they have under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as under the Constitution.

"Those four lines in the legislation would be a seismic change in bedrock civil rights law for religious organizations," said Steven McFarland, chief legal counsel at World Vision USA, a Christian aid organization that is leading the protest. "The impact would be huge and severely affect our ability to help children and others in need."

The provision is in legislation to reauthorize the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which makes grants to nonprofit social service organizations.

This gets back to a fight we saw in the mid-'90s over a policy called "charitable choice," which was included in the welfare reform package. Religiously-based social service groups -- those who run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. -- can apply for public grants to fill public needs. The groups, however, don't want strings attached -- they want taxpayer money, but they also want to be free of employment-discrimination laws.

So, if the Southern Baptists wanted public funds to run a soup kitchen, for example, they might also want to only hire Southern Baptists to work there.

Faith-based groups could always hire and fire whomever they pleased, but this is a little different, because it involves taxpayer money. A church that only wants to hire fellow adherents is fine; a church that discriminates with our money is more problematic.

Expect the fight to pick up in earnest when the House reconvenes and has to vote on the funding bill.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* It's quite ridiculous that steps like these are needed: "Dozens of high-profile Christian and other denominational leaders are defending Obama's profession of faith and criticizing those who would question it. Those leaders, whose ranks include prominent pastors T.D. Jakes and Kirbyjon Caldwell, wrote in an open letter: 'We are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama's faith. We understand that these are contentious times, but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate.'"

* As anti-Muslim bigotry seems to spread, and far-right opposition to mosques becomes more common, incidents like these seem more predictable: "The Fresno Bee reports that a brick was thrown through a window of the Madera Islamic center last Friday. There have been repeated instances of hate directed against this particular mosque. Signs have been left at the Islamic center carrying inflammatory messages."

* In Utah, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate this year, is calling for tougher graduation requirements, including a stronger emphasis on math and science. Incumbent Gov. Gary Herbert (R), in a rather shameless display, said Corroon's plan would make it more difficult on Mormon students looking for seminary time. (Utah schools have "release time" programs where students, as an elective, go to nearby churches for religious training.)

* And James Dobson's retirement seems surprisingly active: "James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based ministries Focus on the Family and Family Talk, announced plans on his 'Family Talk with James Dobson radio show Thursday to form a political action group similar to Focus' CitizenLink." (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

FRC HAS IS IT ALL FIGURED OUT.... Interest in former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's announcement that he's gay seems to have come and gone fairly quickly, but the religious right isn't about to let this go.

Take the Family Research Council, for example. Yesterday, the D.C.-based religious right powerhouse made the bizarre case to its supporters that Republicans would have done better in the 2006 and 2008 elections if only Mehlman had been straight. From its message to FRC backers:

This unfortunate confirmation helps explain the scandalous failure of many in the Republican establishment to vigorously uphold the values and policy positions expressed in the party's platform in 2004 and 2008, particularly the need to protect the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman nationwide. While grassroots activists succeeded in passing marriage amendments in dozens of states across the country, they received little support and even outright resistance from Party officials at the national level, which contributed to the GOP's electoral failures in 2006 and 2008. Now we know one of the major reasons why.

Yes, if only Republican officials hated gay people just a little more, Democrats -- buoyed by unpopular wars, a failing economy, and GOP scandals -- wouldn't have done so well.

That support nationwide for gay rights is growing, not shrinking, is probably a minor detail that the FRC prefers to ignore.

Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

TWO VERY DIFFERENT DREAMS, STRIVING FOR VERY DIFFERENT MOUNTAINTOPS.... I have a meeting this morning that's going to delay my Saturday posting schedule a bit, but in the meantime, as throngs of anti-government zealots assemble at the Lincoln Memorial, I thought I'd take a moment to consider the word "we."

"We," Glenn Beck recently told his minions, will "reclaim the civil rights movement." "We," he added, are "on the right side of history." After all, it was "we" who launched the civil rights movement "in the first place."

It's not altogether clear who counts as part of "we," though presumably it's limited to those who share Beck's twisted view of reality.

Leonard Pitts Jr. explained this week that this isn't just shameless nonsense: "It is obscene. It is theft of legacy. It is robbery of martyr's graves."

Beck was part of the "we" who founded the civil rights movement!? No. Here's who "we" is.

"We" is Emmett Till, tied to a cotton gin fan in the murky waters of the Tallahatchie River. "We" is Rosa Parks telling the bus driver no. "We" is Diane Nash on a sleepless night waiting for missing Freedom Riders to check in. "We" is Charles Sherrod, husband of Shirley, gingerly testing desegregation compliance in an Albany, Ga., bus station. "We" is a sharecropper making his X on a form held by a white college student from the North. "We" is celebrities like Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando and Pernell Roberts of Bonanza, lending their names, their wealth and their labor to the cause of freedom.

"We" is Medgar Evers, Michael Schwerner, Jimmie Lee Jackson, James Reeb, Viola Liuzzo, Cynthia Wesley, Andrew Goodman, Denise McNair, James Chaney, Addie Mae Collins and Carole Robertson, shot, beaten and blown to death for that cause.

"We" is Lyndon Johnson, building a legislative coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats to defeat intransigent Southern Democratic conservatives and enshrine that cause into law.

And "we" is Martin Luther King, giving voice and moral clarity to the cause -- and paying for it with his life.

The we to which Glenn Beck belongs is the we that said no, the we that cried "socialism!" "communism!" "tyranny!" whenever black people and their allies cried freedom.

The fatuous and dishonorable attempt to posit conservatives as the prime engine of civil rights depends for success on the ignorance of the American people... This, then, is to serve notice as Beck and his tea party faithful gather in Lincoln's shadow to claim the mantle of King: Some of us are not ignorant. Some of us remember. Some of us know very well who "we" is.

And, who "we" is not.

Beck and his confused followers are claiming a legacy they don't understand. They're trying to lift a mantle that doesn't fit on their shoulders. They're adding their names to the same scroll they tried and failed to destroy.

Beck and his minions don't quite appreciate why they're an embarrassment to themselves, and that's a shame. They can't comprehend why King was a giant, and Beck is a small, sad cynic. They have no idea why America is so much better and stronger than their hate-filled demagoguery.

But as Eugene Robinson explained, "Saturday night, when the event is done, the Lincoln Memorial will still be the place where King gave one of the most memorable speeches of the 20th century. People who came to the rally in search of answers will still be looking. And Glenn Beck will still be a legend in his own mind."

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

Bookmark and Share

BECK'S FAVORITE RABBI.... Before the show at the Lincoln Memorial could get underway, deranged media personality Glenn Beck helped get the festivities started last night with a "Divine Destiny" religious revival meeting at DC's Kennedy Center. He was joined by the Republican Party's favorite rabbi.

Tonight, at his "Divine Destiny" religious revival, Glenn Beck hosted right-wing Rabbi Daniel Lapin -- presumably as part of his effort to "restore honor."

If restoring honor was the goal, Beck probably should have picked a more credible rabbi.

Daniel Lapin isn't exactly a household name, but in conservative and religious-right circles, he's extremely well known as a go-to guy -- when the right needs a rabbi to bolster its agenda, Lapin is ready to lend a hand, no matter how odious the request. (In one of my favorite examples, radical TV preacher Pat Robertson wrote a book based on post-World War I anti-Semitic conspiracy theory tracts. Robertson sought cover from a Jewish leader, and Lapin obliged.)

Lapin really made his name with the Jack Abramoff Republican lobbying scandal.

Abramoff had been nominated for membership in the Cosmos Club, an exclusive social organization in the nation's capital. He was worried. Most members have received prestigious awards, and Abramoff lamented that he had not. Would it be possible, Abramoff asked Lapin in an e-mail, for Lapin's group, Toward Tradition, to bestow an award upon him? Abramoff sought "something like Scholar of Talmudic studies" and noted that it would "be even better if it were possible that I received these in years past."

In other words, Abramoff sought awards that he had not earned -- and wanted them back dated. Lapin was happy to comply.

In 2005, the Washington Post explained that Lapin had perfected a type of theological prostitution: "For conservatives searching for biblical foundations for their political positions, Lapin is validation from the original source. His specialty is finding support in the Torah for what turns out to be the current Republican platform: lower taxes, decreased regulation, pro-traditional family policies."

And Beck partnered with this guy as part of an effort to "restore honor."

At some point, hopefully in the near future, some of the well-intentioned folks who've been caught up in this Beck nonsense may realize they've been taken in by a carnival huckster selling snake-oil. They'll feel a little humiliated, which will be the appropriate reaction.

Update: Oh, and don't forget that the radical Rev. John Hagee was also on hand to help Beck "restore honor." He's the end-times preacher who said Hurricane Katrina should be blamed on gay people.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 27, 2010

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* There seemed to be widespread relief in some corners today that the Fed will save us all, but that's not quite what Bernanke said: "The Federal Reserve will take new action to bolster the economy only if conditions worsen further, Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Friday, adding that he expects a continued economic recovery."

* Pakistan's devastating flooding: "Even as Pakistani and international relief officials scrambled to save people and property, they despaired that the nation's worst natural calamity had ruined just about every physical strand that knit this country together -- roads, bridges, schools, health clinics, electricity and communications. The destruction could set Pakistan back many years, if not decades, further weaken its feeble civilian administration and add to the burdens on its military."

* Former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea to negotiate the release of American Aijalon Mahli Gomes. Carter was successful.

* A Mississippi middle school recently approved a policy whereby class presidents had to be white. Today, the school board changed direction. Good move.

* Where will all the money from Glenn Beck's rally go? That seems like a fair question.

* I liked it better when fire-department budgets were considered untouchable: "Fire departments around the nation are cutting jobs, closing firehouses and increasingly resorting to 'rolling brownouts' in which they shut different fire companies on different days as the economic downturn forces many cities and towns to make deep cuts that are slowing their responses to fires and other emergencies."

* California's state university system may be struggling, but one campus wanted Sarah Palin for a speaking engagement. She demanded $75,000 plus expenses, a hotel suite, first class airfare or a private Lear jet, pre-screened questions, and "bendable straws." She got it, and spoke for about a half-hour.

* Birthers claim to want the president's birth certificate. What do we call those who want proof of the president's baptism?

* Bill O'Reilly admitted, in print, that Fox News is "anti-liberal." Isn't he supposed to maintain the facade that the Republican network is "fair and balanced," regardless of ideology?

* The Weekly Standard's anti-intellectualism seems more sad than offensive.

* Saving for college really isn't cheap.

* Some worthwhile follow-up on the CBO's letter to Sen. Crapo on health care reform repeal.

* And Ahmed Sharif, the NYC cabbie who was attacked this week, said yesterday he's still glad to be a New Yorker. "I feel like I belong here," he said. "This is the city actually [for] all colors, races, religion, everyone. We live here side by side peacefully." Cheers to that.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

HISTORY NEED NOT BE REWRITTEN....As anti-government zealots assemble in the nation's capital for a rally intended to glorify a deranged, self-described rodeo clown, it's worth emphasizing a simple truth: Glenn Beck would have really hated Martin Luther King, Jr.

Beck recently told his minions, "Damn it, we will reclaim the civil rights [movement]. We will take that movement because we were the people who did it in the first place!"

It's hard to overstate how blisteringly stupid this is.

King's "I Have A Dream" speech was 47 years ago tomorrow, and over the years since its delivery, King has taken his place in the pantheon of legendary American heroes. His iconic status was hard-earned, and well deserved. But to argue that the civil rights movement that King helped lead was a product of right-wing activists who hate government and domestic social programs, is to stray so far from reality that it's hard to even capture it with words.

Americans wisely revere the King legacy now, but a half-century ago, Beck's conservative predecessors loathed the civil rights leader. The right-wing snake-oil salesmen whose shtick Beck is borrowing now used words like "communist" and "radical" to dismiss King and his movement.

Ben Dimiero posted a report this week that reminded us not to let history be rewritten.

King forcefully advocated for drastic action by the federal government to combat poverty; supported "social justice"; called for an "economic bill of rights" that would "guarantee a job to all people who want to work"; and stated that we must address whether we need to "restructure the whole of American society" -- all ideas that Beck has vilified.

Beck accuses progressives of trying to rewrite history and implores his followers to read original sources, but a review of King's own words clearly shows that Beck's insistence that he and his followers are the custodians of King's dream and legacy is nothing more than a lie.

Eugene Robinson, in a column that almost expresses pity for the "egomaniacal talk-show host," also reminds us that "Beck's version of history is flat-out wrong."

The full name of the event at which King spoke 47 years ago was the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom." Among its organizers was labor leader A. Philip Randolph, the founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a vice president of the AFL-CIO, who gave a speech describing the injustice of "a society in which 6 million black and white people are unemployed and millions more live in poverty."

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), then an official of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, was the youngest speaker at the march. "We march today for jobs and freedom, but we have nothing to be proud of, for hundreds and thousands of our brothers are not here -- for they have no money for their transportation, for they are receiving starvation wages," he told the crowd. Referring to proposed civil rights legislation, Lewis said: "We need a bill that will provide for the homeless and starving people of this nation. We need a bill that will ensure the equality of a maid who earns five dollars a week in the home of a family whose total income is $100,000 a year."

From the beginning, King's activism and leadership were aimed at securing not just equal justice but equal opportunity as well. When he was assassinated in 1968, King was in the midst of a Poor People's Campaign aimed at bettering the economic condition of all underprivileged Americans, regardless of race.

"We will take that movement because we were the people who did it in the first place"? If a more pathetic political lie has ever been told, I can't think of it.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

CHRISTIE GETS HIS STORY STRAIGHT.... Like most states, New Jersey sought Race to the Top education grants from the federal government, but much to Gov. Chris Christie's (R) dismay, his state just missed qualifying for $400 million in funding. That, however, isn't the interesting part.

As it turns out, New Jersey Education Commissioner Bret Schundler submitted mistaken data to federal officials, which appears to have cost the state its grant. Christie this week condemned the Obama administration, saying it was the president's bureaucracy that prevented New Jersey from qualifying.

We later learned that the governor didn't know what he was talking about. The Christie administration claimed that Schundler caught the error, and tried to correct it during a presentation to the U.S. Department of Education, but those mean ol' Obama administration officials wouldn't let him fix it. In reality, as a videotape proved, that was backwards -- the Obama administration caught Schundler's error and asked him to fix it. He didn't, so New Jersey lost out on the funding.

Christie, now having been caught misleading the entire state about what transpired, got rid of his education commissioner today.

And then there's the interesting part.

[Schundler] said he was asked to resign, but he requested to be fired instead so he could collect unemployment insurance.

"I have a mortgage to pay and a daughter about to start college," he said.

So, to summarize, Schundler, a far-right Republican, screwed up and cost New Jersey $400 million in education grants. But his top concern, upon being shown the door, is qualifying for unemployment benefits -- which his far-right brethren don't think should exist.

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

BROOKS IGNORES ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS.... Looking back at the debate from early last year, the New York Times's David Brooks wasn't exactly on board with the Republican economic strategy. At the time, President Obama was pushing a major stimulus package to respond to the crisis, while GOP lawmakers wanted a five-year spending freeze.

In early March 2009, Brooks said on national television, "A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane.... [T]hat is just insane."

A year and a half later, Brooks' wisdom on these issues has faded considerably. Consider today's column, for example.

During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence. [...]

This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right? The early returns suggest the Germans were.... The U.S. tried big, but is emerging slowly. The Germans tried small, and are recovering nicely.

Oddly enough, on Tuesday (almost certainly before Brooks' column was written), of his NYT colleagues was describing this very argument as "foolish." From Paul Krugman's blog:

Basically, here's the German story: it's an economy that didn't have a housing bubble, so it wasn't caught up directly in the bust. But it's very export-oriented, with a focus on durable manufactured goods. Demand for these goods plunged in the early stages of the crisis -- so that Germany, remarkably, had a bigger GDP decline than the bubble economies -- but has bounced back since summer 2009.

Be sure to check Krugman's chart.

What's more, Brooks boasts that Germany's unemployment "has come down to pre-crisis levels." What he doesn't mention is that Germany embraced a policy in which the government subsidized employers to keep workers on the payroll, at reduced hours and only slightly reduced pay, instead of laying them off. It's the kind of thing that keeps unemployment rates very low, but Brooks ignores the policy -- a step the U.S. would never consider -- as if it were irrelevant.

Brooks has no excuse for not knowing about this -- it was explored in his own newspaper two weeks ago. The one policy that played a key role in improving the German job market had nothing to do with austerity or balanced budgets, and everything to do with a big-government program called "short work," that would have caused widespread conservative apoplexy if Democrats even considered.

Did Brooks ignore this because it was a factual detail that interfered with his thesis, or did he just not read up on the subject?

Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

LIMBAUGH AIMS AT WRONG FOES.... Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh condemned what he sees as President Obama's "arrogance," and said the president is like "some" African Americans who say the "Fourth of July ain't no big deal to me, yo."

I often feel like I need a decoder ring when translating Limbaugh's nonsense, but this one was especially odd. I've never heard anyone, of any race, say the "Fourth of July ain't no big deal to me, yo." I can only assume this is Limbaugh's way of saying African Americans aren't as patriotic as other Americans -- an argument that is as ugly as it is stupid.

But hearing the clip reminded me of something Tom Schaller has written about -- for quite a while, in parts of the deep South, folks just didn't celebrate the Fourth of July. It was apparently a Yankee holiday.

Well into the 20th century, [South Carolina] was the state where black citizens observed the Fourth of July mostly alone. Why? Because -- get this -- the vast majority of whites preferred instead to celebrate Confederate Memorial Day, May 10, a practice that continued into the early 50s, which means there are some very senior South Carolina citizens who skipped a few Fourths back in their early years. (Why isn't Sean Hannity asking them to brandish their flag pins?)

Nearly as annoying as Limbaugh's racism is his ignorance.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

REPUBLICANS LET RALPH REED OUT OF THE PENALTY BOX.... I realize it's been a couple of years -- and some Republicans have surprisingly short memories -- but the Abramoff lobbying scandal left Ralph Reed a humiliated disgrace. It wasn't just some embarrassing misunderstanding; the scandal ruined him. Permanently.

At least, it seemed that way at the time. In a couple of weeks, Reed will host a right-wing gathering called the "Faith and Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing" in Washington. The former Christian Coalition chief is calling it the "the political equivalent of NFL minicamp."

Yesterday, Reed alerted supporters to the guest list he lined up to speak at the event. It included a lengthy list of heavy-hitters from the media (Tucker Carlson, Erick Erickson, John Fund), GOP strategists (Grover Norquist, Ed Goeas, Patrick Ruffini), Republican members of Congress (J. Randy Forbes, Thaddeus McCotter, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price), GOP congressional candidates (Teresa Collett, Anna Little, Star Parker, Tim Scott, Jackie Walorski), two former senators (Jim Talent, Rick Santorum), a sitting governor (Bob McDonnell), a vote-suppressing loyal Bushie (Hans von Spakovsky), and, of course, Karl Rove.

Now, I should note that this is an announced guest-list. Reed may or may not have secured commitments from all of these Republican luminaries, though the materials certainly make it seem as if these are confirmed guests.

And if so, that's crazy. Indeed, let's take a quick stroll down memory lane. Remember this one, from June 2006?

Yet another delightful characterization of Ralph Reed, courtesy of today's McCain report on the Abramoff scandal. This one comes courtesy of Jack Abramoff himself, via his discussion with Marc Schwartz, a public relations representative for the Tigua tribe in Texas.

Let's pick up the report on page 148. Schwartz was evaluating whether the tribe should hire Abramoff as its lobbyist: To Schwartz, Abramoff appeared to have the right credentials. Abramoff claimed to be a close friend of Congressman Tom DeLay. He also discussed his friendship with Reed, recounting some of their history together at College Republicans. When Schwartz observed that Reed was an ideologue, Schwartz recalled that Abramoff laughingly replied "as far as the cash goes."

Or, how about this one?

Ralph Reed, email to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, 1998: "Hey, now that I'm done with the electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts."

Or this?

E-mails and testimony before McCain's panel showed that Reed, who once branded gambling a "cancer" on society, reaped millions of dollars in tribal casino proceeds that Abramoff secretly routed to him through various non-profit front groups. Abramoff, a lobbyist for the tribes, paid Reed to whip up "grassroots" Christian opposition to prevent rival tribes from opening casinos.

By any reasonable measure, Republicans should avoid taking this guy's phone calls. Instead, Karl Rove, a Republican governor, five Republican congressmen, and five Republican congressional candidates have apparently agreed to speak at Reed's right-wing shindig.

It's a reminder that there is literally nothing a conservative can do to be permanently excluded from polite company.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

DOES BOEHNER REALLY WANT TO DEBATE IRAQ AND THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY?.... As the next phase of the U.S. presence in Iraq begins, and Operation Iraqi Freedom comes to a formal end, it's fair to give some credit to President Obama. It was his vision of a phased withdrawal that shaped the Status of Forces Agreement signed in 2008, and it was his timetable that has brought the troop levels below 50,000 for the first time since the war began.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), meanwhile, has a different take.

House GOP leader John Boehner said on Friday the administration is taking credit for ending the combat mission in Iraq, but that it's the troop surge -- which President Obama opposed as a senator -- that made it possible.

Previewing a speech he'll give on Iraq next week, the Ohio Republican published an op-ed on the conservative Human Events website and released a Web video that credits the troops and the 2007 troop "surge" for turning around the security situation -- and ultimately allowing the withdrawal of combat troops. Boehner argued that Democrats, such as Obama, then-Sen. Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued against the surge at the time, were "on the wrong side of history."

There are a couple of angles to keep in mind. The first is that the surge was not solely responsible for improved conditions in Iraq. There were a number of factors -- the Sunni Awakening, which pre-dated the surge; a ceasefire announced by Shiite militia leader Muqtada Sadr; the success of ethnic cleansing efforts in much of Iraq -- that contributed simultaneously. Boehner tends to get confused by policy arguments that don't fit on a bumper-sticker, but to argue that "surge = success" demonstrates a serious lack of depth.

The second is just as important. Boehner thinks he's on the "right side of history" because he supported escalation in 2007. That's among the most ridiculous things Boehner has ever said. Boehner got the war wrong from the beginning. "History" has made clear that this misguided war was a mistake, and Boehner spent seven years as its cheerleader.

Indeed, Boehner, always a little slow on the uptake, was still linking Iraq to 9/11 as recently as 2007. Asked about the thousands of American troops who died in Iraq, fighting an unnecessary war, Boehner called their deaths "a small price to pay." As recently as 2006, Boehner was insisting that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and played a supporting role in executing the 9/11 attacks.

And now the foolish Minority Leader wants to attack those who got the war right as being on the "wrong side of history"? That's pathetic, even by Boehner's standards.

Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* As things stand in Alaska's Republican Senate primary, Joe Miller leads Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) by 1,668 votes. There are, however, more than 20,000 absentee and disputed ballots that have not yet been counted, and that process will begin on Tuesday.

* In Florida, state Attorney General Bill McCollum is unwilling to endorse Rick Scott, the scandal-plagued health care executive who defeated in him in a Republican gubernatorial primary.

* A Mason-Dixon poll in Nevada shows Sen. Harry Reid (D) with the narrowest of leads over Sharron Angle (R) in this year's Senate race, 45% to 44%.

* In Wisconsin, Senate candidate Ron Johnson (R) is basing his campaign on opposition to spending and government intervention in private industry. He keeps getting caught, however, having sought and received federal aid for his business enterprises.

* In Missouri, a new poll shows Robin Carnahan (D) and Roy Blunt (R) tied in this year's Senate race, but there are some legitimate questions about the methodology, which may be inflating the Democrat's support. (thanks to B.G. for the tip)

* Does Sen. David Vitter (R) have anything to worry about in his Republican primary? Not really -- Public Policy Polling showing him easily trouncing his challengers, including retired state Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor, who seemed like a potential threat.

* Sharron Angle's new attack ad in Nevada goes after Democrats for George W. Bush's mistakes.

* And in Iowa, Rep. Leonard Boswell's (D) opponent seems to have an ugly past: "Republican congressional candidate Brad Zaun was the mayor of Urbandale, Iowa, when he went to an ex-girlfriend's home in the middle of the night, pounded on the windows and called her a slut, according to a 2001 police report."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share

ANGLE REFUSES TO WALK BACK 'DOMESTIC ENEMIES' LINE.... On Sharron Angle's list of greatest hits, it has to rank right up there. During an interview in which a right-wing radio host said there are "domestic enemies" serving in Congress, Angle replied that she agreed with the sentiment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) argued this week, "If she is going to use such rhetoric, she has an obligation to name names and explain to the American people exactly who she thinks is a domestic enemy."

But while the controversy arose a couple of days ago, the interview happened last year. Angle even had a readily available defense -- she could simply try to argue that the provocative remarks came from the host, not her.

Yesterday, the extremist Senate candidate had a chance to walk the whole mess back. As Greg Sargent reported, she declined.

HARRIS: They have gone back to almost a year ago, dug through a conversation you had with my buddy Bill Manders up there in Reno, the big talker up there, where he said that we have domestic enemies and he thinks some of them are in the walls of the Senate and Congress, and you agreed with him. Did you agree with him?

ANGLE: Well, we were talking about what's going on in Congress, of course, and the policies that have come out of Congress, and those policies as we've all seen over the last 18 months have definitely hurt our country.

HARRIS: Yeah, well I agree with you by the way, but I wanted to make sure you got you a chance to clarify that, because I'll tell you the truth, Sharron. I do think we actually do have folks in Congress who truly want to do us harm and see us change from the nation we are now.

ANGLE: There is no doubt that the policies that have been coming out in the last 18 months have injured us, and injured us most specifically here in Nevada.

It would have been so easy for Angle to make this go away. She could have denounced the policies she disagrees with, while adding that she doesn't believe her opponents literally want to harm America.

But that's just not what Angle believes. In her twisted worldview, those who disagree with her are very likely treasonous.

So, I suppose Reid's challenge still stands. If Angle believes there are anti-American traitors shaping federal policy in Washington -- officials deliberately "injuring" the country -- then she would seem to have a responsibility to identify them for public scrutiny.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

GETTING 'OUT THERE' ISN'T ENOUGH.... Economic growth in the second quarter (April through June) was initially estimated to be pretty weak. This morning, the figure was revised downward -- from 2.4% to 1.6%. It's not only evidence of anemic growth, it points to a trend moving in the wrong direction, after two stronger quarters preceding it.

What's more, it's discouraging news that comes on top of other discouraging news. Just over the last couple of weeks, the reports on home sales were awful, and recovery in the manufacturing sector is also stalling.

On Wednesday, President Obama organized a conference call with his top economic advisers, reportedly considering "the next steps to keep the economy growing." But the White House agenda in the short term is not focused specifically on the economy -- on Sunday, Obama will be in New Orleans for the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and on Tuesday, the president will deliver an Oval Office address on the war in Iraq. Later in the week, the focus will be on Middle East peace talks.

A White House official told ABC's Jake Tapper, "We know he needs to be out there to talk about the economy next week. We haven't yet figured out the way he's going to do that."

I think the sentiment is only partially true. A White House focus on the economy certainly makes sense, and "figuring out" a way to convey that to the public seems wise.

But getting Obama "out there to talk about the economy" isn't necessarily the answer -- that is, unless the president has something new to say. By all accounts, he doesn't.

The White House is pushing its $30 billion small business lending initiative and other measures to stimulate economic growth, such as the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments. But advisers say there is little appetite on Capitol Hill for any new spending programs, and limited time in the congressional calendar, suggesting that they feel there aren't any more major initiatives the administration will push in further attempts to revise the sputtering economy.

And that, I fear, is the problem.

The president can get "out there to talk about the economy," and he has a reasonable message to offer -- his policies prevented a catastrophe, created millions of jobs, and made economic growth possible. Had Republicans been in charge at the moment of crisis last year, the evidence is incontrovertible that we'd be in a much worse place.

But the message is also underwhelming. Obama is right, as a factual matter, to tout his economic successes, but in terms of real-world implications, it's wholly unpersuasive to struggling, anxiety-ridden Americans.

I don't want to see the president "out there to talk about the economy"; I want him out there with an ambitious agenda to improve the economy. He won't do that, however, because Republicans won't allow a vote on additional recovery efforts, and panicky Dems thinks voters will punish them for trying to do what works.

I guess that leaves the Fed?

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

PASTS, PROLOGUES, AND PORTMAN.... Of all the statewide candidates doing well this year, I consider Ohio's Rob Portman, the Republican leading in the open U.S. Senate race, one of the more surprising.

While Dems make some efforts to tie various GOP candidates to Bush/Cheney, the task with Portman is altogether different. Portman didn't just occasionally vote for the Bush agenda in Congress, Portman's most recent experience in government was serving as Bush's budget director. When we consider an era in which the Republicans turned huge surpluses into massive deficits, Portman was at the center of the policymaking process.

For that matter, he was Bush's trade rep, in a state where Bush's trade policies aren't exactly popular.

"Rob Portman is the No. 1 George Bush look-alike in the country," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said this week. "I just can't believe the voters are going to choose the candidate who more than anybody else in the whole country represents what got us into this situation."

I can believe it; polls show Portman ahead, despite his background of failure. But what I find the most interesting is Portman's response to the criticism.

After a tour here of the Andersons Inc., a diversified grain, rail and retail company that is a mainstay in northwestern Ohio, Mr. Portman dismissed suggestions that his time in the Bush White House and his image as a trusted adviser to the former president would be a significant liability or that voters would even be concerned about the past.

"What the people in this plant want to know is what you are going to do for me going forward," Mr. Portman said. "That is all they care about, and frankly that's what voters care about."

"The world has moved on," he added. "Maybe the Democrats haven't."

I find this endlessly fascinating. Most candidates seeking high office tell voters, "Look at all that I've accomplished, and vote for me." Portman is telling voters, "Please overlook my record of public service, and vote for me anyway."

"The world has moved on"? I wish we could, but we're still cleaning up the mess Portman helped leave.

The whole strategy is almost comical. I'm trying to imagine an accused thief standing trial, and telling a judge, "Your honor, what matters is what I can do going forward. It's best if we just moved on."

Somehow, I don't imagine that would go over well. I'm not sure why voters in Ohio should be any more persuaded.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

VITTER FEELING A LITTLE TOUCHY ABOUT CRIMINAL AIDE.... I can see why Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) would be concerned about coverage of Brent Furer, but that's no reason for the far-right senator to try to intimidate Louisiana newspapers.

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, scandal-plagued senator knew about this, and not only kept Furer on his staff, but tasked him with helping oversee women's issues for the Senate office. Making matters worse, Vitter, when asked about this, appears to have lied. More recently, we learned Vitter used taxpayer dollars to send Furer to Louisiana, apparently so he could defend himself against some of his criminal charges.

Today, Brian Beutler reports that the senator's office seems to have spent some time lately, pressuring local newspapers not to be so harsh about the Furer story.

Vitter gone to great pains to avoid commenting on the scandal, and has sought to publicly distance himself from Furer. But privately, he's been trying to intimidate newspapers into giving Furer what he considers fair coverage.

In what Redman describes as a "somewhat hyperbolic" letter, Vitter's attorneys attacked The Advocate for not dancing around Furer's history.

"We said that Mr. Furer did something -- that he slashed his girlfriend -- and the police report alleges that and when he finally went to court, he ended up pleading down to lesser charges," Redman said. "Furer was never actually convicted of slashing his girlfriend.... We missed an alleged or an accused of."

The Monroe News Star told Brian about a similar recent experience.

This strikes me as a misguided strategy. Vitter has to hope voters are willing to overlook the scandal, and the more he and his team signal their panic over the controversy, and demand "clarifications" from journalists, the more coverage it will receive.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

'THESE PEOPLE COULD BE IN CHARGE'.... We've seen Democrats experiment with a variety of campaign themes in recent months. "Party of No" was a longtime favorite, but became less effective when the GOP seemed to like it. "Bush Republicans" and "BP Republicans" have been used, but didn't stick.

With about nine weeks to go before the midterm elections, the DNC is today rolling out what's likely to be its final message. To summarize, the pitch effectively tells the public: Republicans aren't just wrong, this year, they're kind of crazy.

Democrats unveiled this video, titled "These People Could be in Charge," this morning, shining a light on a variety of high-profile GOP candidates. All of those featured appear to be, to varying degrees, stark raving mad.

The point isn't subtle -- voters are supposed to start connecting "Republican" and "crazy." This is a party that doesn't just want to turn back the clock to the Bush/Cheney era; this is a party that wants to scrap New Deal-era pillars of American society, repeal constitutional amendments, eliminate cabinet agencies, purge the GOP of moderates, etc.

That this effort is being launched the day before right-wing, anti-government zealots gather at the Lincoln Memorial is not, I suspect, a coincidence.

What's more, the larger significance is very likely intended to push back against the very nature of the cycle. For months, the Republican plan has been to make the elections a referendum -- if you don't like the status quo, vote for the GOP. The Democrats' task has been to present the midterms as a choice -- you can choose to move forward with Dems, or you can go backwards with a radicalized Republican Party.

It's a direct response to the best scenario Democrats could have hoped for. The GOP brand is still deeply unpopular, but presented with a key opportunity for massive gains, the party has nominated some real nutjobs. Voters who may have been inclined to vote Republican this year may think twice when they consider the weirdo whose name is on the ballot.

At least in theory, that is. We may be looking at a dynamic in which there's just nothing more Dems can do. With a struggling economy and a listless base, GOP lunatics may be poised to win in November no matter how compelling the Democratic message is.

But on the whole, I consider this the Dems' strongest pitch. If the American mainstream is already inclined to be suspicious of the Republican pitch, it's wise to reinforce those doubts by demonstrating just how ridiculously right-wing the GOP has become.

As E.J. Dionne Jr. noted yesterday, "Democrats ... have every interest in turning the election into a philosophical contest, arguing that even unhappy voters cannot trust their fate to a party in the grips of a right-wing revolt."

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

HOPING FOR A CUMULATIVE EFFECT.... The New York Times notes today that there were plenty of "shrugs" in response to Ken Mehlman's announcement that he's gay. That Mehlman, the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign manager and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, relied on anti-gay bigotry as an election strategy makes the news at least somewhat noteworthy, but the NYT report argues that the muted GOP response is the result of a party that cares more about fiscal issues right now.

I'm not at all sure that's true. For one thing, I've seen very little evidence that Republicans' alleged commitment to fiscal issues is in any way sincere. (Indeed, just the opposite is true -- they've repeatedly opposed measures that reduce the deficit, and keep pushing tax breaks for millionaires that would increase the deficit.) For another, the religious right elements of the GOP base was well aware of the Mehlman news, and they weren't happy about it.

That said, what's driving the generally muted response to the news? I suspect it's the result of a changing electorate. If Republicans thought there would be a political upside to bashing Mehlman, they'd bash Mehlman. But Americans -- as evidenced by recent polling on marriage equality and DADT repeal -- aren't responding to these appeals the way they used to.

When the blade of a wedge issue gets dull, it's no longer used.

The angle to this story that I care about is the increasing mainstreaming of the push for equality. William Saletan had this item yesterday.

This is a big deal. Mehlman managed President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 and chaired the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007. Many influential Republicans have worked with him and respect him. He makes it harder for them to think of homosexuality as a behavior. They now know somebody who is gay. Or, as Donald Rumsfeld might have put it, they now know that they know somebody who is gay. [...]

Ed Gillespie, the RNC chairman who preceded Mehlman, tells Ambinder that "it is significant that a former chairman of the Republican National Committee is openly gay and that he is supportive of gay marriage." Gillespie acknowledges "big generational differences in perception when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights as an agenda, and I think that is true on the Republican side." Discomfort with abortion isn't going away, but discomfort with same-sex marriage is fading. Homosexuality is becoming normalized.

I think that's true, and it's about damn time. To be sure, it's hard to believe we'll find Republicans responding to the news by saying, "Oh, Ken's gay? In that case, I'm prepared to rethink my position on the issue."

What I'm hoping for, however, is a cumulative effect. Dick Cheney supports marriage equality. So does the man who managed the 2004 Republican presidential campaign and the man who managed the 2008 Republican presidential campaign. George W. Bush isn't on board, but his wife is. The same goes for John McCain.

The point is, this is no longer some kind of radical, scandalous position. When Democrats announce their support for marriage equality -- and here's hoping more of them do -- they have far less to fear in terms of a political backlash. They can characterize their perspective as being entirely mainstream, because it is.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 26, 2010

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Reversing a month-long trend, the initial weekly jobless claims dropped this week, even beating expectations. While a good week is at least somewhat heartening, the numbers are still way too high.

* Monsters who want struggling families to suffer even more: "The Pakistani Taliban called the presence of foreign relief workers in this flood-ravaged country 'unacceptable' on Thursday and suggested that militants could carry out attacks against members of aid groups."

* What a mess: "The aide to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan at the center of a politically sensitive corruption investigation is being paid by the Central Intelligence Agency.... Mr. Salehi's relationship with the C.I.A. underscores deep contradictions at the heart of the Obama administration's policy in Afghanistan, with American officials simultaneously demanding that Mr. Karzai root out the corruption that pervades his government while sometimes subsidizing the very people suspected of perpetrating it."

* Michael Enright, who allegedly attacked a New York cab driver on Tuesday in an insane hate crime, "kept a personal diary filled with anti-Islamic rants."

* Truly nauseating: "In the latest in a spate of anti-Muslim incidents over the last two days, an intoxicated man entered a mosque in Queens on Wednesday evening and proceeded to urinate on prayer rugs, New York police officials said. The man, identified as Omar Rivera, reportedly shouted anti-Muslim epithets and called worshippers who had gathered for evening prayer 'terrorists.'"

* Last August featured town-hall events that became something of a national embarrassment. This August, not so much.

* I'd feel better about Blue Dogs if they didn't joke publicly about Speaker Pelosi's mortality.

* The controversy over how much Sarah Palin was paid by California State University, Stanislaus, earlier this summer continues to simmer, and a state judge wants disclosure on how much the former half-term governor was paid.

* Ed Chen, the former president of the White House Correspondents Association, thinks it was a "travesty of a decision" to award Fox News a seat in the front row of the briefing room.

* Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who is now a Fox News personality, believes the U.S. State Department, working with a moderate American imam on Middle East diplomacy, constitutes "bailing out imams." I'm beginning to think maybe Huckabee isn't very bright.

* E.J. Dionne Jr. on the party of crazy: "The paradox is that a Republican Party in the grips of ideology needs to shift the campaign in a less ideological direction, hoping that voters simply cast protest ballots against hard economic times. Democrats, who are more doctrinally diverse, have every interest in turning the election into a philosophical contest, arguing that even unhappy voters cannot trust their fate to a party in the grips of a right-wing revolt. Once again on Tuesday, Republican primary participants seemed determined to give Democrats that opportunity."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

'NUTPICKING' HASN'T GONE AWAY.... I'd hoped we were past this.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported news that a Muslim cab driver in New York City had been assaulted by a passenger simply because of his faith. [...]

Today on Fox News, right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin discussed the incident and argued that the real story is not about the hate crime, but rather, the progressive blogosphere. "Something really ugly happened," she said. "Time and again, when something like this happens -- any random incident of violence -- there are people on the left with a knee-jerk impulse to indict the right." As evidence, Malkin pointed to comments left on ThinkProgress.

Note, Malkin wasn't offended by what ThinkProgress wrote; she was offended when she dug through the comments section and found reactions she found distasteful.

Ben Armbruster highlights the fact that Malkin insists she bears no responsibility for what people say in her own comments section, making her entire line of argument rather odd.

But when I say we should be past this by now, I mean this is an old trick for right-wing bloggers that ceased to be interesting years ago.

For a long while, it was a standard strategy -- trawl through liberal comments sections in the hopes of finding provocative remarks. The right then would then take those comments to "prove" that the left is made up of intemperate meanies.

The practice has always been rather self-defeating. In fact, four years ago this month, on this very blog, Kevin Drum came up with a sensible maxim: "If you're forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you've pretty much made exactly the opposite point." Eventually, the practice was even given a name: "Nutpicking."

The practice seemed to die down for a while. I guess Malkin is trying to bring it back?

Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

LOOKING FOR INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY IN THE STEM-CELL DEBATE.... A federal court order this week threw a massive curveball at stem-cell research, and it's going to take some time and effort to sort things out. As you may have heard, the ruling will be appealed and Congress will likely hold some hearings, and Nina Mendelson, a professor of administrative law at the University of Michigan Law School, has some helpful insights into what, exactly, the judge did.

In the meantime, the underlying issue is back in the news, and Michael Kinsley notes some of the key inconsistencies in the position taken by those who insist that embryos are people in need of protection.

Half of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, usually in the first couple of weeks, before a woman even knows that she is pregnant. A miscarriage destroys an embryo. If you believe that every embryo is the moral equivalent of a fully-formed human being, miscarriages are like a perpetual natural disaster like a flood or an earthquake, and you should be urging a massive effort to reduce miscarriages as the best way to save millions of human lives a year. As far as I know, there is no such effort going on in the United States or elsewhere.

But perhaps your concern is not the number of slaughtered embryos, but rather the morality of intentionally killing them or -- worse, in your view -- intentionally creating and then killing them. In that case, your attention should be directed to fertility clinics, which routinely create multiple embryos for each human baby they wish to produce. They pick and choose among the embryos that seem healthiest, and typically implant several in the hope that one --and not more than one -- will survive. Every year tens of thousands of human embryos are created and destroyed (or pointlessly frozen) in the everyday work of fertility clinics. There is no political effort to stop this work. President George W. Bush even praised the work of fertility clinics in his speech announcing the policy that virtually halted stem cell research for eight years. Advanced fertility techniques have brought happiness to thousands of couples who otherwise would probably be childless. They are a godsend that no politician would dare oppose.

Of the tens of thousands of embryos discarded by fertility clinics every year, a few are used for stem cell research. Extracting the stem cells involves destroying the embryos, which would be destroyed anyway.

I've long looked for consistency -- intellectual, moral, ethical -- among opponents of stem-cell research, and I've never found any. If someone believes a fertilized egg that has grown to a few dozen cells is a full-fledged human being, deserving of the full protection of the law, then IVF would constitute nightmarish science. Conservatives would be compelled to protest at fertility clinics, and condemn families that try to have babies through the procedure. After all, the IVF process is designed to include discarded embryos.

But no one is making that argument. There's a high degree of comfort level with discarding embryos at fertility clinics, but intense conservative opposition to medical research involving embryos that offer the promise of life-saving science. I've never understood this.

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

REPEAL THE ACA, INCREASE THE DEFICIT.... Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Healthcare, recently wrote to the Congressional Budget Office with a question. With the midterm elections coming up, and the Republican desire to repeal the Affordable Care Act still simmering, the far-right Idahoan wanted the CBO to flesh out some details about health care reform and the budget.

I don't imagine he was pleased with the response.

This week, the CBO explained to Crapo in some detail that scrapping the law would add nearly half a trillion dollars to deficits over the next decade.

"[Y]ou asked what the net deficit impact would be if certain provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act that were estimated to generate net savings were eliminated -- specifically, those which were originally estimated to generate a net reduction in mandatory outlays of $455 billion over the 2010-2019 period. The estimate of $455 billion mentioned in your letter represents the net effects of many provisions. Some of those provisions generated savings for Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, and some generated costs.

"If those provisions were repealed, CBO estimates that there would be an increase in deficits similar to its original estimate of $455 billion in net savings over that period."

This is significant, of course, to the extent that Republicans are making promises to voters that don't make any sense. The GOP is allegedly committed to deficit reduction, and at the same time, is committing to scrapping the entire Affordable Care Act, which would in turn increase the deficit.

For some Republicans who really don't know what they're talking about, they'll even combine these contradictory positions simultaneously. Kelly Ayotte, an often-confused Republican Senate candidate in New Hampshire, recently told local reporters that the federal budget deficit is "the biggest threat to our country" right now. Putting aside the fact that this position doesn't make sense, she was then asked how she'd reduce it. Ayotte replied she'd repeal the Affordable Care Act.

In other words, she'd try to reduce the deficit by increasing the deficit.

In related news, Republicans believe accelerators make cars slow down, lighter fluid puts fires out, and light bulbs make rooms darker.

I realize when the GOP talks about deficit reduction, the party's candidates don't really mean it. But as they continue to hit the campaign trail, Republicans should probably at least pretend to explain how they'd go about addressing what they claim to be an important issue. If they say they can achieve deficit reduction through ACA repeal, someone ought to point out how backwards this is.

Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

EGOMANIA ON AN UNHEALTHY SCALE.... Glenn Beck's "Restore America" event is itself an extraordinary display of self-aggrandizement. This deranged media personality picks the site and anniversary of the "I Have A Dream" speech to present himself as the leader of a grand movement that will save civilization. Beck even claims, out loud and without humor, to be acting as a vessel of God.

But that was before he released this video to his website, which takes the megalomania to a whole new level. It's four minutes of head-shaking entertainment, and if you're worried about your colleagues hearing you laugh out loud at the unintentional hilarity, you may want to wait until after work to watch it.

Ben Dimiero explained, "Beck humbly places the rally in the context of the moon landing, the Montgomery bus boycott, Iwo Jima, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and other landmark historical events. It also not-so-subtly suggests that Beck is following in the tradition of Martin Luther King (which is a farce), Abraham Lincoln, most of the Founding Fathers, Martha Washington, the Wright Brothers, and other notable historical figures."

Set against music trying a little too hard to be stirring, the voiceover tells viewers, "Every great achievement in human history has started with one person. One crazy idea."

The message isn't subtle -- the one person is Glenn Beck, and the one crazy idea is Saturday's ridiculous rally.

It concludes, "It's time to restore America. Restore the world. It's time to believe again."

Atrios added, "The slightly interesting thing Beck is that he appears to be an insane megalomanic who is self-aware enough to be aware of that fact. It's what allows him to be a huckster clown on top of it."

I'd just add one related thought. I'm trying to imagine what the response would be among conservatives if, say, Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 had tried to do something similar. Imagine if the campaign had organized an event at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the "I Have A Dream" speech, and then released a video comparing the Obama-led effort to the Founding Fathers, the Moon landing, the civil rights movement, and the invention of airplanes.

Imagine if that same Obama campaign video told viewers, "It's time to restore America. Restore the world. It's time to believe again."

The right would consider this egomania on an unhealthy level, and they'd be right.

And yet, here we are, with Beck, Palin, and 300,000 zealots showing up in D.C. on Saturday.

Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

Bookmark and Share

THE OFF-AGAIN/ON-AGAIN LOVE AFFAIR WITH EARMARKS.... Periodically, the political world's obsession with earmarks becomes fashionable. The word itself is, at least in some corners, synonymous with "waste" and "abuse." John McCain's presidential campaign made it seem as if the elimination of earmarks -- which represents a tiny fraction of the federal budget -- would single-handedly restore fiscal responsibility to Washington.

Indeed, this year, House Republicans announced a self-imposed, one-year moratorium on earmarks, in which all GOP members were supposed to prove their commitment to spending cuts by forswearing the nasty buggers.

In reality, some House Republican requested earmarks anyway. And next year, if there's a GOP majority, the moratorium against earmarks will be over.

House Republicans have banked on voter anger, a sputtering economy and an unpopular president to propel them ahead of Democrats in the polls so far this year.

But now they're trying to lay the foundation for how they would actually govern.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said a House GOP majority will focus on aggressive oversight of the Obama administration, will work to defund the agencies responsible for implementing health care and will push a "zero tolerance" ethics policy. He also said Republicans may roll back their ban on earmarks, as long as the spending items have "merit."

Oh, I see. Good earmarks are fine. It's those bad ones Republicans will frown upon.

The larger significance is appreciating just hollow the GOP's anti-earmark rhetoric really is. Right-wing Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) in Colorado is basing much of his campaign on his opposition to pork-barrel spending, and he's even pledged to refuse earmarks if elected. But this is the same Buck who "has requested at least $5 million in earmarks and grants" for taxpayer-financed projects in the county where's he's been a prosecutor.

Sam Stein reports today on several similar situations with other high-profile Republican candidates.

The right-wing Club for Growth, responding to Republicans' new-found tolerance for earmarks, posted an angry item on its blog: "So now they think they can take back the majority and revert to their old ways and everything will be lovey dovey with the conservative base? Think again."

To be clear, I don't much care either way -- earmarks are not, by definition, wasteful or abusive, and the right's preoccupation with the subject is pretty silly.

But the right should start realizing now that Republicans probably aren't serious about their own rhetoric on this.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

CLYBURN WON'T VOTE FOR GREENE.... Whether South Carolina Democrats like it or not, Alvin Greene is and will be the party's nominee for the United States Senate in November. He'll face incumbent Sen. Jim DeMint (R), who is now the single safest bet for re-election in the country.

The choice for Dems, then, is whether to vote for someone who, by any objective measure, is not qualified for the job. South Carolina's most powerful, most respected Democrat announced yesterday that he would not.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-.S.C.) said Wednesday he will vote for write-in candidate Mazie Ferguson for Senate instead of Alvin Greene, the state's Democratic nominee.

The AP reports Clyburn will refuse because Greene has been indicted on a felony charge.

Clyburn told reporters a vote for Greene, who was arrested in November on charges of showing pornographic images to a female student at the University of South Carolina, would be inconsiderate to the women in his family.

"Look, I have three daughters and a granddaughter. I think it would be an insult to them if I did that," he said.

There was no wiggle room -- Clyburn told reporters, "No, I'm not going to vote for Mr. Greene."

That seems like a reasonable position for a party leader to take. It's not realistic to think officials of one party are suddenly going to endorse the candidate of the rival party -- that's just not going to happen given the way party politics works. But when responsible patriots look at their candidate, and realize that he/she has no business getting elected, the sensible, conscientious thing to do is announce that this candidate will not receive their support. Clyburn no doubt realizes this will only improve the Republican's vote total, but has concluded he's doing the right thing anyway.

What's noteworthy, then, is how this isn't happening among Republican leaders, who probably realize that candidates like Angle, Paul, and Buck are nearly as ridiculous as Alvin Greene, but who nevertheless enjoy the GOP's enthusiastic support.

I'm not suggesting the NRSC has a patriotic duty to endorse Harry Reid's re-election campaign. But it is interesting that Dems distance themselves from their fringe, unqualified Senate candidates, but Republicans aren't interested in doing the same.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

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. Lisa Murkowski (R) is trailing in primary bid in Alaska by about 1,500 votes, with at least 8,000 more still to be counted. If she ends up losing, Murkowski has the option of pulling a Lieberman and running as a third-party candidate. She told her supporters yesterday that "it ain't over yet, folks" and that she would wait until the absentee ballots are counted before making decisions about her short-term future.

* In Vermont's five-way Democratic gubernatorial primary, just 1% of the vote separate the top three candidates, with all of the precincts reporting. For now, state Sen. Peter Shumlin leads by 213 votes over his next closest competitor.

* Florida Republicans were forced to scrap their "party unity" event yesterday, after GOP candidates decided they still hate each other. On a related note, Bill McCollum still isn't interested in endorsing Rick Scott in the gubernatorial race, citing questions about "his character, his integrity, his honesty" and his fraud scandal.

* In Wisconsin, right-wing Senate hopeful Ron Johnson (R) is vehemently against government assistance to private entities -- except when his own business sought and received a government-issued loan to expand its factory.

* In Ohio, former Rep. John Kasich's (R) gubernatorial campaign presented a plan to streamline business regulations. There's one problem: it's nearly identical to the plan Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland approved two years ago.

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D) campaign unveiled a hard-hitting new ad this morning, using Sharron Angle's own words to make the Republican candidate look like a lunatic.

* In Colorado, the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Republican extremist Ken Buck leading Sen. Michael Bennet (D) by nine, 49% to 40%. The Democrat's campaign will reportedly unveil an internal poll today showing Bennet up by four.

* In Pennsylvania, a new Franklin & Marshall poll shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading the U.S. Senate race by nine, and state A.G. Tom Corbett (R) leading the gubernatorial race by 11.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

Bookmark and Share

OTHER THAN TAX CUTS, PENCE WANTS TAX CUTS.... House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) chatted with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren this week, leading to an interesting exchange.

Van Susteren wanted to get a sense of what Americans could expect from Pence's Republican Party, other than "the usual," when it comes to the economy. She noted that Republicans obviously support Bush-era tax rates, but wondered, other than that, what else Pence might push to improve the economy. He replied:

"Yes, look, the enemy of our prosperity is uncertainty ... the greatest uncertainty right now is -- and you just heard -- you heard the Vice President again kind of defend it in passing, their tax cuts -- their tax increases on the rich -- is this administration actually thinks that it would be a good idea to allow a tax increase on job creators on January 1st, 2011. You know, higher taxes never got anybody hired."

So, asked what the GOP supports in terms of economic policy, other than Bush's tax policy, the chairman of the House Republican Conference responds by reiterating his support for Bush's tax policy (which, by the way, failed miserably to produce the predicted economic nirvana).

It's as if someone bought an ipod, uploaded one song, and hit "shuffle."

Ben Armbruster added, "Given that Pence has been asked repeatedly for new ideas on the economy -- and hasn't been able to offer any -- one would imagine that he could think of something other than "tax cuts," but apparently not.

Remember, Republicans tend to consider Pence one of their sharpest, most important leaders. Seriously.

Steve Benen 11:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

WE DON'T NEED BECK TO 'RESTORE' OUR 'HONOR'.... Deranged media personality Glenn Beck will headline a rally on Saturday, which he says is intended to "restore honor" to America. Funny, I didn't realize American honor had disappeared -- or that we were dependent on a self-described rodeo-clown and his easily manipulated minions to "restore" it for us.

Regardless, Beck chose the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream Speech" for his get-together, and if that weren't quite audacious enough, Beck is also holding his rally at the same location -- the base of the Lincoln Memorial -- where King spoke. (Even one of Beck's Fox News colleagues thinks the choice of locations is wrong.)

Wait, it gets better. Beck not only considers himself a modern-day MLK -- he says he and his followers can "reclaim" the civil rights movement for themselves -- Beck also considers himself as a vessel for the Almighty. The media personality explained on his radio show two weeks ago that his rally is being orchestrated by God to unleash revival upon America. The Restoring Honor event, Beck said, "is Divine Providence. This is the Lord's hand at work. This is a miracle."

This is a delusional, Messianic freak.

But it will likely be a huge success anyway. When organizers applied for their permit with the National Park Service, they said they expect 300,000 people to attend. That may very well happen.

Conservative activists, meanwhile, promise that the rally will show their unity and voice, as last year's 9/12 event did. Jamie Radtke, founder of the Federation of Virginia Tea Party Patriots, predicted an event as much as twice as large as last year's, based on the number of buses that local tea party organizers have chartered. The Richmond Tea Party alone is sending 15 buses -- up from seven last year, she said. [...]

Beck, the third-highest-rated radio personality, has promoted the event relentlessly to his enormous audience. FreedomWorks, the tea party group that staged 9/12, is lending its organizational muscle and grass-roots network.

The numbers don't translate to merit, necessarily, and even if turnout falls short of expectations, Fox News will simply announce that 17 gajillion people showed up anyway.

Either way, the event itself will shine a bright light, once again, on hysterical right-wing zealots and their bizarre leaders. The party that's been taken over by the extremists is feigning ignorance.

Operatives at virtually every Republican committee in Washington claimed little or no knowledge of the event.

They might well have cause to be squeamish: Beck has accused Obama of reverse racism and of having "a deep-seated hatred of white people," and his plan to celebrate the lessons of the civil rights era creates the possibility of confrontations. It could also result in damaging imagery, similar to the photos that emerged from some early tea party gatherings, which Democrats could use to paint Republicans as extreme. That may explain why the event is being met with near-total silence by Republicans.

"In general, people coming to Washington, being organized and active is a good thing," said Doug Heye, a spokesman for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele. "But I gotta be honest with you -- I don't know about any Glenn Beck event."

Democrats aren't passing up the chance to tie the GOP to the rally. "Republicans for well over the past year have firmly embraced the tea party and some of these right-wing fringe groups that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have rallied around, and these are becoming serious campaign liabilities in the general election," said Ryan Rudominer, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The fact that they're trying to plead ignorance is just completely absurd."

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

Bookmark and Share

THE WRONG RESPONSE TO A SHOCKING CRIME.... Details of what happened and why are still coming into focus, but from what we now know, on Tuesday night, 21-year-old film student Michael Enright got into Ahmed Sharif's taxi cab in New York City. Enright asked about Sharif's background and faith, before mocking Ramadan. Soon after, Enright starting talking about checkpoints, withdrew a Leatherman knife, and stabbed the driver in the throat, face, arms, and hands.

Sharif, fortunately, appears to be doing fine after receiving more than two dozen stitches. Enright was quickly apprehended by police, and has been charged with second-degree attempted murder as a hate crime, first-degree assault as a hate crime and criminal possession of a weapon. He faces a possible 25-year sentence.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) invited Sharif to City Hall today, and said, "This attack runs counter to everything that New Yorkers believe, no matter what God we may pray to."

Gov. David Paterson's (D) reaction was less encouraging. Among other things, the governor said:

"The potential for this kind of violence is one of the reasons why I have called publicly for a respectful and unifying conversation about the Park51 project. I continue to offer my assistance for an open dialogue that I believe will help to bring New Yorkers together."

Of course, Paterson has said he wants to accommodate the demands of the Park51 critics, even considering state land for the project. In this context, his statement made it seem as if the controversy and the stabbing are connected, and moving the community center would make things better.

As Ben Smith put it, "The argument here: The mosque must be moved because its opponents are crazed, violent bigots who need to be appeased. Sounds like a good compromise."

Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Rep. John Fleming (R) of Louisiana was campaigning alongside Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) this week, speaking to a Republican women's group near Shreveport. Fleming did his best to frame the midterm elections in a very specific way.

"We have two competing world views here and there is no way that we can reach across the aisle -- one is going to have to win," said Rep. John Fleming, R-La. [...]

"We are either going to go down the socialist road and become like Western Europe and create, I guess really a godless society, an atheist society. Or we're going to continue down the other pathway where we believe in freedom of speech, individual liberties and that we remain a Christian nation.

"So we're going to have to solve that argument before we can once again reach across and work together on things."

There's all kinds of fascinating angles to this remarkable nonsense, but let's note some of the highlights.

First, for all the talk from pundits that Democrats need to do much more to reach out and compromise with congressional Republicans, Fleming's wildly foolish comments are a reminder that there's just not much Dems can do with the modern-day GOP.

Second, there's nothing in the Democratic agenda that calls for an "atheist society"; Western Europe is filled with countries that have official state churches; and it doesn't make any sense to simultaneously claim to protect "individual liberties" and a "Christian nation." The United States separates church from state. Fleming may want a Christian-style theocracy -- maybe an Iran for the West -- but that's just not how Americans do things.

And finally, Fleming was campaigning with David Vitter. Voters are supposed to chose righteousness by backing the right-wing politician who hires prostitutes?

Postscript: Brian Beutler notes that the godless Democratic heathens have nominated David Melville to run against Fleming in November. Melville is a Methodist pastor.

Update: A friend emails: "Would Vitter be subjected to stoning in Fleming's Christian nation?"

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

FEAR CAN (AND SHOULD) BE A POWERFUL MOTIVATOR.... The lead Politico story this morning reports on the borderline-panic among leading Democrats about the midterm elections. It's not a pretty picture.

Top Democrats are growing markedly more pessimistic about holding the House, privately conceding that the summertime economic and political recovery they were banking on will not likely materialize by Election Day.

In conversations with more than two dozen party insiders, most of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly about the state of play, Democrats in and out of Washington say they are increasingly alarmed about the economic and polling data they have seen in recent weeks.

Hopes earlier this year that economic conditions would noticeably improve by the fall have given way to a discouraging reality. Dems thought to be in relatively "safe" districts are now seen as vulnerable. The article quoted an unidentified Democratic pollster saying the party's House majority is "probably gone."

The dread is not universal -- some leading party strategists said the crushing pessimism is mostly "inside-the-beltway chatter" -- and the campaign committees are taking steps to help mitigate losses. Politico added, "Republicans have been out-raised and out-spent at the national level and in many of the key races."

But it's nevertheless safe to say that the political winds are picking up, and they're not at the Democrats' backs.

None of this, however, is new. Indeed, many of us could have sketched out the entire article in our heads before reading it. The question the Politico didn't get to is what Democrats plan to do about their predicament.

The article said there are competing strategies about the elections, but Dems "mostly agree there are few good options beyond grinding it out in each individual race."

There may be limited "good options," but there are options. For example there are Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and Dems could use the limited legislative calendar to push strong bills -- job creation, small businesses, repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," energy -- that voters might like, and which might motivate the Democratic base to turn out.

Sure, Republicans will oppose everything, and will very likely prevent votes in the Senate. But there's nothing wrong with putting up a fight, showing voters the party's priorities, forcing the GOP to cast tough votes shortly before an election, and giving the party something to be excited about.

It's better than hoping for the best.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

MCCAIN IS GONE AND HE'S NOT COMING BACK.... As recently as April, there was some polling suggesting that Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) primary race was down to single-digits. Understandably nervous, the Republican incumbent did what he had to do -- he spent like crazy.

When the dust settled, McCain's strategy worked. He'd spent $21 million on the primary, and ended up getting 56% of the Arizona Republicans' vote. As ridiculous as this may seem, the "septuagenarian maverick paid approximately $74.64 per vote."

Nevertheless, with the primary behind him, McCain can take some comfort in knowing he's very likely to win a fifth term. As for what he might do with this opportunity, David Broder has some advice.

What [the Senate needs] badly is adult leadership, and it's now incumbent on McCain to demonstrate that he is prepared to fulfill this role for both his party and his country. [...]

[N]ow, as the 73-year-old senator prepares for what may well be his final term in a congressional career that began in 1982, the time has come for McCain to look to his legacy -- and conditions are right.

In a Congress in which Democrats have pitiful approval ratings and Republicans even worse, McCain is one of the few names that does not draw instant contempt from the voters. The reputation he established for independence -- for being his own man, no matter what the pressures -- has survived the vagaries of an exceptionally long career.

Sigh.

Over the course of several years, there were so many "what happened to John McCain?" columns that the observation became a cliche. Pundits who adored the conservative senator and showered him with praise struggled to come to grips with McCain's descent into a becoming a bitter, confused, hard-right hack.

If Broder's column is any indication, we should perhaps brace ourselves for a new Village push: "maybe the old John McCain can come back to us?"

He won't. McCain has transformed his persona more than once during his lengthy political career, but by all appearances, the angry, cantankerous ideologue that emerged several years ago is the one we're stuck with. Broder seems to believe this was merely a facade, necessary to win a GOP primary in a "red" state, and now that the primary is over, the previous incarnation of John McCain can once again grace us with his presence.

But there's simply no reason to even hope for yet another transformation. Just last year, McCain seemed like a lock for re-election -- there was no meaningful talk of a primary opponent -- and he nevertheless acted like a spoiled, stubborn, hyper-partisan child. This was, in other words, the real personality.

The McCain that Broder is pining for is gone. Waiting for his return is a fool's errand.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 25, 2010

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Coordinated attacks in 13 Iraqi towns and cities kill dozens: "Insurgents unleashed a wave of coordinated attacks across Iraq on Wednesday in a demonstration of their ability to strike at will."

* Really not good: "Sales of U.S. new homes unexpectedly dropped in July to the lowest level on record, signaling that even with cheaper prices and reduced borrowing costs the housing market is retreating."

* Really not good, Part II: "New orders for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods excluding transportation equipment posted their largest decline in 1-1/2 years in July while overall booking rose far less than expected, pointing to a slowdown in manufacturing."

* Relief trickles in for victims of Pakistan flooding.

* The anti-Muslim stabbing of a New York City cabdriver is so shocking, and the details about the alleged attacker so bizarre, one hardly knows where to start.

* President Obama will visit Fort Bliss, Tex., on Tuesday to meet with U.S. troops returning from Iraq. That night, he'll deliver an Oval Office address about the end of combat operations in the country.

* Yemen remains a focus of serious attention: "For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, CIA analysts see one of al-Qaeda's offshoots -- rather than the core group now based in Pakistan -- as the most urgent threat to U.S. security, officials said."

* Alan Simpson, the co-chair of President Obama's Fiscal Responsibility Commission, apologizes for his ridiculous email this week. Paul Krugman isn't persuaded.

* Republicans made dire predictions about the Obama administration's drilling moratorium. As is often the case, they were wrong.

* A Korean cult leader, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, apparently wants the conservative Washington Times back.

* Congrats to Nate Silver and his team on FiveThirtyEight's transition to the New York Times.

* Daniel Luzer: "The recession has caused parents to save more for college, though apparently it's not working out so well."

* Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) believes political figures who use the word "retarded" in a private meeting should be fired. She also believes political figures who use the "N-word" on national broadcasts should be protected. I wonder why that is.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

WHITE HOUSE CONSIDERS 'NEXT STEPS TO KEEP THE ECONOMY GROWING'.... President Obama's vacation still has a few days to go, but a president is never fully on vacation, and developments still demand his attention.

Take the economy, for example.

U.S. President Barack Obama held a conference call with his top economic advisers on Wednesday to discuss recent data reports, global markets and economic growth, the White House said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House advisers Christy Romer and Larry Summers took part in the call with Obama, who is vacationing on the Massachusetts islands of Martha's Vineyard.

"The economic team provided an update on the next steps to keep the economy growing, including assistance to small businesses and the extension of tax cuts to the middle class," the White House said in a statement.

The statement added that the discussion "focused on recent data reports, global markets and economic growth." That's not exactly a detailed summary, but then again, I don't expect one under the circumstances.

What seems noteworthy here is that recent events made the call necessary in the first place. The president is, not surprisingly, aware of reports this week that cast the economy in a negative light, and arranging a discussion with his team not only makes sense, it also suggests a degree of concern.

Good. There should be concern. There should be lots of conference calls and strategy sessions and brain-storming and creative thinking. Ideally, there'd be all kinds of indications that leading officials are actively engaged in crafting a compelling economic plan for the very near future.

The White House statement said Obama heard about "the next steps to keep the economy growing." I don't have a sense of what those "next steps" might be, exactly, but here's hoping there are lots of them.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

A BASE THAT PUNISHES COOPERATION.... Time will tell what the outcome is in Alaska's Republican Senate primary. Tea Partier Joe Miller appears to have the edge, but given the margin, incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski may yet prevail.

But if the upset occurs, and pundits are looking for the larger meaning, they should start with Jonathan Bernstein's insights today.

[N]o matter what the final result, but especially if Miller wins: these primaries are sending a very strong message to GOP pols about the dangers of ever allowing any space to develop between themselves and movement conservatives. And that's true whether or not that's a message that Alaska's primary voters are intending to send (it may be, as I said last night, that the explanation for this election has more to do with the reputation of the Murkowski name in Alaska along with general voter discontent with the economy than it has to do with her actual actions in the Senate): the interpretation everyone's going to hear and believe is that ideological deviation, even very mild deviation, is extremely dangerous to one's electoral health.

Whether it's the New START treaty, or a compromise deal on the budget if the GOP controls at least one House of Congress next year, or any other issue, you can be sure that Republican pols who have to cast tough votes are going to remember Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski (and Arlen Specter, for that matter).

Agreed. For all the talk about endangered incumbents, alienated establishment types, and gender advantages in the Republican primaries this year, it seems the most meaningful takeaway of 2010 so far is the willingness of the Republican base -- everywhere -- to punish those open to compromise and constructive policymaking.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R) lost in Utah, in large part because his willingness to work with a Democrat on health care policy was deemed unacceptable to the party's base. Rep. Bob Inglis (R) was trounced in South Carolina because he expressed a willingness to work with people he disagreed with. Florida's Charlie Crist and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter were driven out of the party altogether because they considered it part of their responsibilities to play a constructive role in policymaking.

Also note the inverse. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was growing increasingly unpopular with his party's base, but he cruised to an easy primary win after assuring Republicans he would not cooperate with anyone who doesn't agree entirely with everything he already believes.

I might quibble a little with Jonathan's specifics -- I don't think the GOP base cares enough about New START to punish Republicans over it -- but the larger point seems entirely accurate. Murkowski wasn't a moderate, but she was one of a handful of Senate Republicans who Democrats considered at least somewhat approachable. And now, her career may very well be over.

The message from the base to Republican lawmakers who might consider constructive lawmaking: don't do it. Party activists don't want responsible leaders who'll try to solve problems; they want hard-right ideologues. No exceptions.

Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

A MORE PRAGMATIC IDEOLOGY.... In a "Daily Dish" item yesterday, Conor Friedersdorf explored the ways in which someone like Matt Yglesias approaches public policy. Friedersdorf emphasized that Matt does not, conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, having a reflexive preference for larger government:

The desired end of Matthew Yglesias isn't to grow the American state. On some issues, he sees a bigger state as a necessary means to an end he desires (like using subsidies to increase the percentage of Americans covered by some form of health insurance), and on other issues he favors taking power away from the state. It is useful to understand these distinctions, even if you think, as I do, that the federal government should be much smaller than Mr. Yglesias would have it.

It prompted Adam Serwer to note one of my favorite observations.

[T]he idea that conservatives don't understand that liberals aren't ideologically committed to the expansion of government the way conservatives are ideologically committed to the shrinking of government is indicative of the fact that conservative conversations about liberals take place in an alternate reality. Liberals believe that government has a responsibility to help people, especially those at the margins, cope with the exigencies of the free market, but that doesn't mean we're going to support a local height requirement in Washington, D.C., that artificially inflates the price of living space because it prevents the construction of housing with greater density. The means and outcome of policy matters, rather than the size of the role government ultimately plays. Yglesias is hardly unique in that sense.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I believe that conservatives don't really understand the difference.

I continue to see this as one of the fundamental differences between the left and right -- one considers smaller government an end unto itself, while the other cares infinitely more about policy outcomes than the size of government. Liberals and conservatives don't only disagree on political goals, they differ on the kinds of goals worth pursuing.

Paul Krugman had an item on this in April: "On the right, people are for smaller government as a matter of principle -- smaller government for its own sake. And so they naturally imagine that their opponents must be their mirror image, wanting bigger government as a goal in itself. But it's not true. I don't know any progressives who gloat over increases in the federal payroll or the government share of GDP. Progressives have things they want the government to do -- like guaranteeing health care. Size per se doesn't matter. But people on the right apparently can't get that."

No, they really don't. The liberal worldview is not about necessarily increasing the size of government or raising taxes; those mechanisms are only valuable insofar as they reach the desired end-point. For the right, it's the other way around -- the ideological goal is the desired end-point.

I can imagine a scenario in which the president hosts a big meeting with all the congressional leaders, and suggests it's time to review the economic recovery efforts of the last year and a half, looking closely at what worked and what didn't, and then working on what to do next. For Dems, the task would be fairly straightforward -- let's do more of what was the most effective, and less of what was the least effective.

For Republicans, it doesn't work quite that way -- they have ideological ideals that outweigh evidence. GOP leaders could be shown incontrovertible evidence that the most effective methods of creating jobs and improving the economy are aid to states, infrastructure investment, unemployment insurance, and food stamps, and they'd still say tax cuts for millionaires is the better way to go. Why? Because their ideology dictates that government spending is bad, government intervention in the economy is bad, and tax cuts are good.

Jon Chait had a terrific piece on this larger dynamic several years ago.

We're accustomed to thinking of liberalism and conservatism as parallel ideologies, with conservatives preferring less government and liberals preferring more. The equivalency breaks down, though, when you consider that liberals never claim that increasing the size of government is an end in itself. Liberals only support larger government if they have some reason to believe that it will lead to material improvement in people's lives. Conservatives also want material improvement in people's lives, of course, but proving that their policies can produce such an outcome is a luxury, not a necessity.

The contrast between economic liberalism and economic conservatism, then, ultimately lies not only in different values or preferences but in different epistemologies. Liberalism is a more deeply pragmatic governing philosophy -- more open to change, more receptive to empiricism, and ultimately better at producing policies that improve the human condition -- than conservatism.

Now, liberalism's pragmatic superiority wouldn't matter to a true ideological conservative any more than news about the medical benefits of pork (to pick an imaginary example) would cause a strictly observant Jew to begin eating ham sandwiches. But, if you have no particular a priori preference about the size of government and care only about tangible outcomes, then liberalism's aversion to dogma makes it superior as a practical governing philosophy.

Those on the right want to cut taxes, because tax cuts are necessarily good. They want smaller government, because smaller government is necessarily good. They want to privatize public programs because privatization is necessarily good.

The left has no parallel ideological desires (wanting bigger government just for the sake of having bigger government).

The left starts with a policy goal (more people with access to medical care, more students with access to college, less pollution, more Wall Street safeguards) and crafts proposals to try to complete the task. The right starts with an ideological goal (smaller government, more privatization, lower taxes) and works backwards.

Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE SIMPSON SHOULDN'T COUNT AS A 'SERIOUS PERSON'.... Ashley Carson, executive director of the National Older Women's League, recently wrote an item for the Huffington Post, criticizing former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) for his approach to Social Security. As the co-chair of the White House's bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform -- a deficit commission considering changes to Social Security -- Simpson's perspective is of particular relevance right now.

Four months later, the Republican responded to Carson's piece in a frank email to its author. That appears to have been a very bad idea.

His email is peppered with exclamation points and condescension. At one point he urged Carson to read a certain graph, "which I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs."

Simpson concludes by implying that leading a major organization dedicated to the interests of middle-aged and elderly women is not "honest work."

"If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know," he writes. "And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow
with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!"

As a substantive matter, this is ridiculous. As a political matter, it's hard to imagine what Simpson was thinking. And as a matter of basic decency and respect, Simpson's email is a reminder that the former Republican senator probably should have stayed in retirement.

This isn't the first time Simpson's approach to Social Security policy has come into question, but it is the most offensive time. "310 million tits"? Really?

I can appreciate the White House's difficulties when shaping the deficit commission's membership. The goal was to find credible, knowledgeable, sincere officials -- "elder statesman" types, I suppose -- who'd be willing to work in good faith on a bipartisan compromise. It was deemed important for President Obama to choose two co-chairs, one from each party, and all things being equal, Simpson probably seemed like a reasonable choice.

It's unfortunate, but the "bench" of serious Republicans available for a role like this one is depressingly thin.

Six months later, though, it seems increasingly clear that Simpson lacks the judgment and temperament for the job.

Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

ANGLE EYES 'DOMESTIC ENEMIES'.... A couple of years ago, the national scene began to appreciate just how unhinged Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) really is during an appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball." The right-wing lawmaker said there should be an investigation to determine which members of Congress are "pro-America or anti-America" -- offering one of the more blatant examples of modern-day McCarthyism.

Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, is apparently thinking along the same lines.

Yesterday, Greg Sargent reported on a radio interview Angle did on the day she launched her campaign last year. During the appearance, Angle "clearly and unequivocally agreed with an interviewer who asserted flatly that there are 'domestic enemies' and 'homegrown enemies' in the 'walls of the Senate and the Congress.'"

That's obviously pretty crazy stuff. As Jed Lewison noted, "[D]oesn't this put her comments about 'Second Amendment remedies' in an even more sinister light?

Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), already pushing the line that Angle is far "too extreme" for the American mainstream, is connecting these revelations to the larger observation.

"Sharron Angle's rhetoric is irresponsible and over the top. Let me be very clear. While I may have some differences of opinion with my Republican colleagues in the Senate, I have never questioned their patriotism. For Sharron Angle to agree that any of them -- Republican or Democrat -- is an enemy of the state is not only an insult to every United States Senator, it's a disgrace to our country. If she is going to use such rhetoric, she has an obligation to name names and explain to the American people exactly who she thinks is a domestic enemy."

That sounds about right. If Angle really is convinced Congress has "homegrown enemies" shaping federal policy, she should elaborate a bit on who these dastardly politicians are. In fairness, the exact words were the radio host's, not the candidate's, but Angle clearly endorsed the sentiment and said she agreed with the charge. Given her other public comments, Angle wasn't just popping off to win some primary votes -- she believes this stuff.

But there's also the larger question of when, exactly, Republican leaders might be willing to put some distance between the GOP and its more ridiculous candidates. E.J. Dionne Jr. noted the other day, "What the current right has [to] offer is far worse than anything Bush put forward, which means that this election isn't even about whether we'll go back into the ditch. It's about whether a movement that's gone over a cliff will be rewarded for doing so. A victory for this style of conservatism will be a defeat for the kind of conservatism the country needs. And that's a worthy matter to put to the voters."

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

UNEXPECTED RESULTS IN THE LAST FRONTIER.... Very few political observers expected a credible contest in Alaska's GOP Senate primary. Incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski had all the advantages, and her opponent was an obscure lawyer, Joe Miller, with Tea Party backing.

As of right now, with 97.9% of the precincts reporting, Miller leads Murkowski by 1,960 votes. We may not get a final resolution for a couple of weeks -- and with recounts, maybe longer -- but it appears that Alaska may be home to one of the year's biggest upsets.

We have some sense as to how Miller managed to do so well, but if reader emails this morning are any indication, there are two larger questions on the minds of many: Who's Joe Miller? And if Murkowski ends up losing, is this Senate seat in play in November?

On the former, Miller, if he is the nominee, would quickly join the ranks of Angle, Paul, Buck, Toomey, and Johnson as the Republicans' "Bizarre Brigade" of 2010. Amanda Terkel had this report a couple of days ago.

In a June 24 interview with local KTVA-Channel 11, Miller avoided answering questions about President Obama's religion and citizenship, simply saying that he isn't running on a "birther platform":

Q: President Obama: Is he an American citizen? And is he a Christian?

MILLER: (Laughter) No comm- Look, President Obama's been elected. I'm not running on any type of birther platform. I will tell you that I am an Alaskan by choice though, and I'm going to put my documents up on the website.

Miller wants to ban all abortion rights, repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, including measures protecting consumers with pre-existing conditions.

And what about the Democrat? Some higher-profile candidates likely skipped the race, assuming Murkowski would run and win, but Scott McAdams, mayor of the town of Sitka (population: 9,000), easily won the Democratic nomination yesterday, and is likely about to receive considerably more attention than he's used to. Christina Bellantoni had this report:

National Democrats tell us privately the Alaska Senate race wasn't even on their radar, until today when Miller's showing stunned Washington. [...]

Democrats tell me that at this point they don't expect to spend money or devote resources to Alaska given they are on the defense in states that are likely to be far more competitive this fall. But don't forget, Mark Begich winning statewide in Alaska in 2008 at one point seemed like a pipe dream. Anything's possible.

Something to keep an eye on.

Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* As Florida's gubernatorial campaign gets underway in earnest, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Alex Sink (D) leading Rick Scott (R), 41% to 34%. Independent Bud Chiles is third with 8%.

* Speaking of Florida, remember David M. Rivera, the scandal-plagued Republican House candidate? He won his primary yesterday.

* In Arizona, the Republican establishment rallied behind former state Sen. Jonathan Paton as the strongest candidate to take on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) in November. GOP primary voters ignored Paton and nominated Tea Party favorite Jesse Kelly, much to the delight of the DCCC.

* A state judge will have to decide fairly soon whether the "Michigan Tea Party," which may or may not be a sham organization set up by Democrats, will be on the state ballot in November.

* In Colorado, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has launched its first ad, going after Republican nominee Ken Buck's remarks supporting repeal of the 17th Amendment.

* In Maryland's gubernatorial rematch, a new poll shows incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) leading former Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R), 47% to 41%.

* In Louisiana, Sen. David Vitter (R) is engulfed in multiple scandals, but voters haven't heard much about them. A new survey from Public Policy Polling will show the ethics-challenged incumbent leading Rep. Charlie Melancon (D), 51% to 41%.

* And while disgraced former Ohio Rep. Jim Traficant (D) has been ruled ineligible for November's ballot, he still has supporters who intend to push his candidacy in court.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

FRIVOLOUS HEALTH CARE LAWSUIT FAILS TO BOOST STATE AGS.... Almost immediately after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, several Republican state attorneys general -- all ambitious, all with higher office in mind -- decided that filing a lawsuit challenging the new law would boost their careers.

Among them were: South Carolina's Henry McMaster (R), Florida's Bill McCollum (R), and Michigan's Mike Cox (R). All three ran for governor this year, based at least in part on their "leadership" roles trying to undermine health care reform. As Ben Smith noted today, things didn't turn out well for them -- all three lost in their respective primaries.

McMaster lost to Nikki Haley, whose reform message trumped his series of ads touting his health care fight. Cox, who also put his health care suit on air, lost to a wealthy businessman who ran on a non-ideological platform under the slogan, "one tough nerd." McCollum lost to Rick Scott, and there the message may not be as clear -- Scott was also a leading national foe of the health care bill.

But the suggestion to take from this, I think, is that the "throw the bums out" sentiment shouldn't be mistaken for an argument solely, or even primarily, about policy -- even about health care.

In fairness, the larger pattern doesn't hold up for all of the state AGs involved in the suit. In Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett (R) joined the lawsuit, for example, and he remains the favorite in the state's gubernatorial campaign.

But in March, there was an assumption, especially in Republican circles, that opposition to the Affordable Care Act was political gold -- and the bigger one's role in fighting the Democratic reform package, the larger the political reward. Five months later, those assumptions are looking pretty shaky.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

NOT ONE OF THE CHOICES.... When it comes to a debate over last year's economic stimulus, there are a few options available to those offering critiques. One could argue, for example, that the stimulus was a strong package that prevented an economic collapse and worked as intended, but should have been bigger and more ambitious to create a more robust recovery.

Or one might argue that the Recovery Act was just fine the way it was shaped; a bigger one never would have passed Congress; and that the economy will slowly but surely keep growing.

As for the right, which didn't want any stimulus and pushed a five-year spending freeze at the height of the crisis, the choices are more nuanced. A conservative could argue, for example, that the stimulus was pointless and the economy would be in the identical shape it's in now had the Recovery Act never passed. A Republican might also argue that a different kind of stimulus -- i.e. using that money exclusively for tax cuts -- would have been more effective. These arguments are demonstrably false, but presumably one could make them with a straight face.

Arguing that the stimulus actually hurt the economy, however, isn't one of the choices -- because it's just too crazy. And yet, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) seemed to make this exact argument yesterday in his big economic speech in Cleveland.

"Right now, America's employers are afraid to invest in an economy stalled by 'stimulus' spending....

"By trying to build a recovery on government 'stimulus' spending -- and failing -- Washington has kept the private sector in bust while manufacturing a boom for the public sector."

I can appreciate how and why the Recovery Act has faced criticism -- I'm in the "way too small" camp, myself -- but Boehner's critique really doesn't make a lick of sense.

The stimulus "stalled" the economy? In what universe is that true? The economy is, to be sure, on shaky ground, but literally just hours after Boehner's remarks, the Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus boosted overall economic growth in the second quarter by as much as 4.5%. Boehner's on firm ground complaining about a "stalled" economy, but blaming that on the stimulus is insane.

Likewise, his remark about the stimulus having "kept the private sector in bust" is just gibberish. Private-sector job growth was in freefall before the stimulus, but started recovering soon after the Recovery Act became law. So far in 2010, 630,000 private-sector jobs have been created -- which obviously isn't enough, but is nevertheless a reality at odds with Boehner's nonsense.

A few months ago, ABC News ran a piece on some economic experts weighing in on the merit of the stimulus -- some were fans, some weren't. But how many economists did ABC find who said the Recovery Act actually hurt the economy? None. It's just not a credible position.

Someone probably ought to let Boehner know. His credibility seems to be getting worse all the time.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

I CAN'T BELIEVE HE LOST TO THAT GUY.... When it comes to issues and policies, I think Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) is wrong about nearly everything. I can't help, however, feel a little bad for him right now.

After 20 years in Congress, McCollum ran for the Senate in 2000, and lost. He ran for the Senate again in 2004, and lost again. In 2010, McCollum looked like he had the gubernatorial field all to himself, and polls showed him as the favorite in November. Then, disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott launched a bizarre primary challenge.

McCollum looked like he was closing strong, and enjoyed the support of the Republican Party and the state's business community, but he came up short anyway -- losing his third statewide bid in a decade, this time to a borderline-criminal who's never shown any interest in public service.

Millionaire businessman Rick Scott's surprise win in the Florida Republican gubernatorial primary Tuesday left both parties scrambling over how to cope with a candidate who possesses both glaring flaws and considerable assets.

Scott's three-percentage-point victory over state Attorney General Bill McCollum transforms what would have been a relatively bland general election contest between two establishment politicians into a race that will offer a test of outsider strength in a season of intense voter anger.

Rick Scott is, of course, best known as the former head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company that got caught up in a massive fraud scandal in the 1990s -- and nothing says victory in Florida like "Medicare fraud." Scott's firm later pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, and agreed to pay $1.7 billion in fines, a record penalty for a health care company. The fines covered fraud perpetrated under Scott's watch, and he was forced out of his job as a result of the scandal.

More recently, Scott used his personal fortune to hire the Swiftboat liars' p.r. firm, and proceeded to launch a breathtakingly deceptive right-wing ad campaign in opposition to health care reform. He is, by the way, also at the center of an ongoing scandal stemming from his alleged fraud in the '90s.

And now he's also the Republican gubernatorial nominee in one of the nation's largest states.

As for McCollum, in his concession last night, he noted that "no one could have anticipated the entrance of a multi-millionaire with a questionable past who shattered campaign spending records and spent more in four months than has ever been spent in a primary race here in Florida."

McCollum has not pledged his support for Scott, and the GOP nominee probably shouldn't be waiting by the phone.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE BOEHNER LEFT OUT THE GOOD PARTS.... If House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) goal was to get plenty of attention by delivering a speech on the economy yesterday, it was something of a success. Boehner's remarks were widely noted, especially the made-for-the-headlines appeal that President Obama replace his economic team.

But if the goal was to demonstrate competence -- or better yet, present a coherent vision of how his caucus would handle economic policy if given a majority -- Boehner fell far short. Indeed, he ended up embarrassing himself a bit.

There's no shortage of thorough fact-checking items -- Boehner, surprisingly clueless about the nation's most pressing issue, said a lot of things that weren't true -- and I'd encourage folks to check out takes from the White House, Wonk Room, Bill Scher, and Media Matters.

But Boehner's problems go well beyond obvious errors of fact. Ruth Marcus' takedown was very compelling.

There are times when I flirt with the notion that the country would be better off with divided government.

If Republicans took control, say, of the House, there would be pressure on both parties to behave more responsibly. The GOP would be pushed to stop carping and posturing, and start governing. Democrats would have political cover to make hard choices on entitlement spending, taxes and the like. As every politician knows, bipartisan cliff-jumping is a safer sport than going solo.

That's the theory. Then there's John Boehner.

The man who would be speaker outlined his agenda Tuesday in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland -- economic policy reduced to, literally, five easy tweets. The Ohio Republican offered up a depressing blend of tired ideas, tired-er one-liners ("We've tried 19 months of government-as-community-organizer") and cheap attacks.

She concluded with a sentiment that I've thought countless times in recent years: "Democrats -- and the country -- would benefit from a responsible opposition party. I'm still looking for evidence of one."

Marcus wasn't the only one who noticed. Politico's Jake Sherman described Boehner's remarks as a "continuous battering of the president's advisers, policies and legacy" and "an attack strategy that is thus far short on Republican vision and long on bashing Democrats."

Yesterday offered Boehner a real chance -- with the spotlight to himself, he could prove he's capable of seriousness; capable of presenting a coherent policy agenda; capable of getting past tired cliches and talking points, and demonstrating a real grasp of substantive policy. It was, then, a missed opportunity for a man who clearly isn't ready to lead.

Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

THE LINGERING CONSEQUENCES OF E COLI CONSERVATISM.... You've likely heard about the egg recall that's currently underway, in the wake of at least 1,300 salmonella-related illnesses spanning 22 states over the summer. The Washington Post noted this week that the outbreak highlights the need to fix "the holes in the country's food safety net."

As we learn more about the story, we see that the salmonella problems stem from an uninspected producer in Iowa, with a record of health, safety, labor, and other violations that go back 20 years. Democrats in Washington are nearing approval of a new food-safety bill, but Jonathan Cohn takes a closer look this morning at pending egg regulations, which have been lingering for quite a while.

Cohn notes that the "saga of these standards seems like a case study in how conservative politics and conservative politicians have weakened federal regulation, exposing the public to greater health risks."

It begins ... with the administration of Ronald Reagan. Convinced that excessive regulation was stifling American innovation and imposing unnecessary costs on the public, Reagan's team changed the way government makes rules.

Prior to the 1980s, agencies like the FDA had authority to finalize regulations on their own. Reagan changed that, forcing agencies to submit all regulations to the Office of Management and Budget, which cast a more skeptical eye on anything that would require the government or business to spend more money. The regulatory process slowed down and, in many cases, the people in charge of it became more skittish.

Clinton didn't share Reagan's antipathy to regulation. Prodded by consumer advocates and more liberal Democrats, his administration announced its intention to impose new safety requirements on the egg industry. But that happened in 1999, a year before Clinton left office. When George W. Bush succeeded him, the administration's posture reverted to its 1980s version.

Like Reagan, Bush was skeptical of government interference in the market. And, like Reagan, he appointed officials sympathetic to businesses that wanted to avoid the cost of complying with new federal rules. It was not until 2004, five years after Clinton had proposed the new egg rules, that the Bush Administration issued actual regulatory language. And by 2009, when Bush left office, the administration still had not finalized the rule.

William Hubbard, who was associate FDA commissioner from 1991 until 2005, told Cohn the Bush White House simply wouldn't let the FDA act, because Bush's team was "very hostile to regulation."

This isn't quite new -- we've seen related outbreaks a little too often in recent years, and much of it stems from insufficient government safeguards. Relevant companies are doing what the industry is expected to do -- exploiting loopholes to cut corners and save costs -- but if policymakers simply let the free market guide the food-safety process, the results include the salmonella illnesses we're seeing now.

The answer, then, is a political one -- federal officials need to intervene to do what American consumers cannot do for themselves, in this case, imposing stricter safety regulations. For all the Republican hatred of government regulation -- "I don't want Obama's hands in my eggs!" -- recent developments should turn the anti-government crusade on its head.

A few years ago, Rick Perlstein coined the phrase "E. Coli Conservatism." The importance of rejecting that ideology keeps getting stronger.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

MULTI-STATE PRIMARIES DEFY MEDIA NARRATIVES.... In political punditry, the desire to identify trends, themes, and patterns is pretty strong. But as the year unfolds, pesky voters keep making the task more difficult.

It's an anti-incumbent year, except for all the incumbents who are doing fine. Tea Party favorites fare well, except where they don't. Candidates with establishment backing are in trouble, except when they keep winning. The candidates with more money excel, except when they're trounced. For every narrative, there are counter-examples that render it largely useless.

And while pundits no doubt find this challenging when telling the public What It All Means, I'd argue it makes for a more interesting election season. Yesterday, for example, offered all kinds of surprises. Let's take the states one at a time.

Florida

Arguably yesterday's marquee match-up was Florida's Republican gubernatorial primary, where polls showed state Attorney General Bill McCollum closing strong. The polls were largely wrong -- disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott won by three points, and will face Florida CFO Alex Sink (D) in November. While Scott's very deep pockets will help Republicans statewide, Dems in the Sunshine State seemed pleased with the outcome. "Florida Republicans nominate for governor a corrupt health care CEO that defrauded taxpayers," said Democratic strategist Mo Elleithee. "Thank you, Tea Party!"

Florida's other big match-up was the Senate Democratic primary, where Rep. Kendrick Meek easily defeated rich guy Jeff Greene, winning by 26 points, despite Greene's aggressive and expensive ad campaign. Meek will take on Gov. Charlie Crist (I) and Marco Rubio (R) in the fall.

Elsewhere in Florida, Blue Dog Rep. Allen Boyd (D) faced a stiff primary challenge from state Senate Minority Leader Al Lawson. Boyd outspent his challenger 10-to-1, but barely eked out a victory, 51% to 49%.

Arizona

The Republican Senate primary was, at one point, expected to be fairly competitive, but Sen. John McCain spent heavily to crush former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and it paid off -- McCain won by 24 points. (I'd argue the infomercial controversy stopped any momentum Hayworth might have had.) Similarly, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) was, a while back, supposed to face a tough primary challenge, but the state's anti-immigrant law propelled her to Republican stardom, and she cruised to an overwhelming primary victory yesterday.

Elsewhere in Arizona, Ben Quayle managed to win a multi-candidate GOP primary in retiring Rep. John Shadegg's (R) district, despite multiple controversies.

Alaska

In what may prove to be the most important primary yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, expected to easily win her Republican primary, was actually losing to Tea Partier Joe Miller as of early this morning. With 84% of the state's precincts reporting, Miller led, 52% to 48%. Though it's still too soon to call the race, Dave Weigel had an interesting take on how the upset became possible.

Vermont

In one of the nation's most competitive contests, five viable Democratic gubernatorial candidates faced off yesterday, and with 89% of the precincts reporting, it's still unclear who'll win. State Sen. Peter Shumlin leads with 25.1%, followed very closely by state Sen. Doug Racine with 24.9%. Secretary of State Deb Markowitz is hot on their heels with 23.8%, and former state Sen. Matt Dunne is a competitive fourth with 21%. This one might take a while to sort out.

So, what's the larger lesson from all of these results? I continue to believe the moral of the story is that there is no moral to the story.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 24, 2010

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Ugly: "Sales of previously built single-family homes plunged in July to their lowest level since May 1995 as job fears trumped low mortgage interest rates and relatively affordable home prices." The drop was 27.2% from June -- twice as bad as economists expected.

* Frank Ahrens tries to make us feel better: "Painful as it is to take in the short term, today's news about the plunge in home sales is exactly what this economy needs for the long run. Think of it as an economic colonic. Not pretty, but necessary."

* Deadly attacks in Mogadishu: "Somali insurgents disguised in government military uniforms stormed a Mogadishu hotel on Tuesday and killed at least 30 people, including six lawmakers, laying bare how vulnerable Somalia's government is, even in an area it claims to control. The insurgents methodically moved room to room, killing hotel guests who tried to bolt their doors shut, Somali officials said. When government forces finally cornered the insurgents, two blew themselves up with suicide vests."

* Here's hoping this news out of the Gulf is accurate: "Petroleum-eating bacteria - which had dined for eons on oil seeping naturally through the sea floor -- proliferated in the cloud of oil that drifted underwater for months after the April 20 accident. They not only outcompeted fellow microbes, they each ramped up their own internal metabolic machinery to digest the oil as efficiently as possible."

* Former President Jimmy Carter is headed to North Korea in the hopes of freeing Aijalon Mahli Gomes, a 31-year-old Boston resident who was sentenced in April to eight years at a hard labor camp for illegally crossing North Korea's border with China.

* There are now fewer than 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the lowest since the 2003 invasion.

* Shirley Sherrod has turned down a job offer at the Agriculture Department. I can't say I blame her.

* Atrios speaks the truth: "10-year Treasury at 2.51. As I keep saying, at rates this low it's a crime not to borrow crazy amounts and spend it on SUPERTRAINS and fixing bridges and whatnot."

* During her work at the Bush State Department, Karen Hughes worked with Feisal Abdul Rauf -- except she no longer remembers that.

* Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has described Rauf -- an American, a moderate imam, and an ally of the Bush administration -- as "a jihadist." What a buffoon.

* Anyone relying on right-wing blogger Pamela Geller as a reliable source of information is making a foolish mistake.

* Have I mentioned lately how confusing Jonah Goldberg is?

* Daniel Luzer: "Guess who's most likely to finish college? Oddly and surprisingly, it's heavy Facebook users."

* Tea Party activist Mark Williams' bigotry appears to get even worse.

* And finally, a Tea Party group has advised activists visiting D.C. this weekend which parts of the city to visit -- and which parts not to visit. Rachel Maddow and Eugene Robinson took a closer look at the advice in an amusing segment last night.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE STEPS ALL OVER BOEHNER'S MESSAGE.... In his exceedingly silly speech on the economy today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) proudly proclaimed, "All this 'stimulus' spending has gotten us nowhere."

And almost immediately thereafter, the CBO made Boehner look pretty foolish.

The oft-criticized stimulus plan boosted the economy in the second quarter by as much as 4.5%, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.

In a report published the same day as Minority Leader John Boehner's criticism of President Obama's economic policy, the CBO said the stimulus law boosted the economy by between 1.7% and 4.5%, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.

This seems pretty significant, so let's look at it from a few different angles.

First, as a real-world matter, economic growth was pretty slow in the second quarter (April to June), but the CBO report makes clear that without the stimulus, it wouldn't have grown at all. In other words, a stimulus helped lead to tepid growth -- the absence of a stimulus would have been significant economic contraction.

Second, this CBO data, like reports from the Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget, should effectively end the debate about whether the Recovery Act did what it set out to do. The stimulus effort was too small -- criticism from conservative Republicans is completely backwards -- but as designed, it was intended to give the economy a significant boost, and save and create millions of jobs. It did exactly that. Anyone who argues otherwise is either not paying attention or is being willfully dishonest.

Third, the White House would be smart to trumpet the CBO report pretty loudly, especially today, but the same political dynamic that's existed for months continues to be a problem -- the stimulus prevented a catastrophe, and Republicans were spectacularly wrong at the moment of crisis, but the economy is still hurting badly. Saying "it would have been much worse" is entirely accurate. It's also entirely unpersuasive in a country burdened by fear and high unemployment.

And finally, by way of a reminder as to how truly nonsensical our politics can be, also note that the economy could use another boost to prevent it from slipping even further backwards. The CBO makes abundantly clear that the stimulus worked in generating growth and creating jobs. So, does that mean we'll get another stimulus to generate more growth and create more jobs? Of course not -- Republicans choose not to believe the data, want less of what worked, and won't allow a vote on the most effective elements of the policy. Voters say they want less spending -- even though more spending would improve the economy -- and congressional Democrats are unlikely to even try to push for more recovery efforts, fearing a public backlash against sound policies that work.

The stimulus worked, and we need more. The country is convinced it failed, and demands less.

We know what the economy needs; we know how to make it happen; and our politics just won't let us get from here to there.

Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

ENERGIZING MORE THAN JUST THE GOP BASE, CONT'D.... As conservatives become more animated in their demands that Muslim American face discrimination, it's becoming increasingly important to appreciate the consequences of the right's hysteria. As we talked about yesterday, it's not just the Republican base feeling energized by the "debate."

Frank Rich had a very good column over the weekend, noting, "After 9/11, President Bush praised Islam as a religion of peace and asked for tolerance for Muslims not necessarily because he was a humanitarian or knew much about Islam but because national security demanded it. An America at war with Islam plays right into Al Qaeda's recruitment spiel. This month's incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing is a national security disaster for that reason -- Osama bin Laden's 'next video script has just written itself,' as the former F.B.I. terrorist interrogator Ali Soufan put it."

NPR reported today that experts in counter-terrorism believe the controversy surrounding the Park51 proposal may play "right into the hands of radical extremists." (thanks to B.A. tip)

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience -- young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

"This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands," said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. "Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

"It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn't be happier." [...]

Extremists and radical clerics posted a stream of "I told you so" messages: After years of telling followers that Islam was under attack by the West, the harsh reaction to a simple community center seemed to prove it.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric linked to the Fort Hood shootings and the failed Christmas Day attempt, recently released an appeal to disaffected American Muslims, who may be feeling ostracized by American society. Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism research fellow at the New America Foundation, said the fear is Awlaki will gain more credibility.

"Over the past nine to 12 months, Anwar al-Awlaki has tried to promote this notion that the West, and particularly the United States, will turn on its Muslim citizens," Fishman said. "And some of the anti-Islamic tone that has been going around the country in connection with the mosque debate feeds into this notion that people like Anwar al-Awlaki can take advantage of."

Opposing efforts to improve the economy, willingly providing fodder to our enemies, demanding sweeping changes to our Constitution ... I'm not sure what the United States did to offend conservative activists so much, but for all of our sake, I wish they'd reconsider.

Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

TOOMEY HAS BIG PLANS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY.... For all the talk about the various radical candidates seeking statewide office this year -- Angle, Paul, Johnson, Maes, Emmer -- it's easy to overlook former Rep. Pat Toomey, the Republican Senate nominee in Pennsylvania this year.

One recent analysis found that Toomey, based on his voting record, is "considerably" more conservative than Rick Santorum was during his tenure, and had a record more ideologically in tune with notorious North Carolinian Jesse Helms.

To help drive the point home, consider his approach to Social Security, an issue we're apparently not supposed to talk about, and which GOP leaders like to suggest they won't privatize. Toomey was asked yesterday at the Pennsylvania Press Club whether he stands by the privatization scheme he's long favored. "I've never said I favor privatizing Social Security," he replied.

A dramatic flip-flop? No, the issue here is that Toomey just prefers to define "privatization" in a way that doesn't make sense. He doesn't support privatization, Toomey just wants workers to take their money out of the Social Security system, and invest it on their own in private accounts -- subject to swings on Wall Street -- which will support them during their retirement. Toomey even wrote a book with a chapter called, "Transforming Social Security." The first subhead reads, "Personal Accounts Lead to Personal Prosperity."

Some dare call this "privatization"? Imagine that.

Pat Garofalo explained:

[M]ake no mistake, Toomey absolutely favors privatizing a portion of the program, as he makes painfully clear through his advocating that young workers "own" an account. Such privatized accounts would have experienced sharp negative returns in the market turmoil of 2008.

As Josh Dorner noted, a recent CNN poll "found that 59 percent oppose privatizing Social Security and Medicare." 46 percent of voters said such a plan would make them "very uncomfortable" and a further 21 percent had reservations about it. Toomey tries to dress this up by not calling it privatization, but his formula is the same one that was roundly rejected when President Bush tried it in 2005.

Toomey may not feel comfortable with the description of his privatization scheme, but that doesn't change what it is.

Just as an aside, I also noticed that Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine was in Philadelphia earlier this month, throwing her support to Toomey and helping the right-wing candidate raise money. This struck me as a little bizarre -- when Toomey led the Club for Growth, one of his main tasks was destroying moderate Republicans like Collins. In 2009, Toomey even named Collins a "Comrade of the Month" for having supported economic recovery efforts.

For that matter, Collins claims that she wants to see a more moderate Republican Party, with more GOP lawmakers willing to work on bipartisan policy solutions. If she believes that, why on earth would she be in Pennsylvania, going out of her way to support Toomey, an unabashedly far-right ideologue?

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

A CLOSER LOOK AT 'THE VIRGINIA STRATEGY'.... The Wall Street Journal editorial board has an item today heralding Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell's (R) $400 million budget surplus. According to the WSJ, it "proves" the efficacy of the Republican approach, and reminds federal policymakers to "employ the Virginia strategy."

In his ridiculous economic speech today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) also singled out Bob McDonnell for praise, noting how impressive it was to see the Virginia Republican "balance his state's budget ... without raising taxes."

McDonnell himself has started patting himself on the back. Last week, he stopped by the Fox Business Network to boast about the greatness of his "conservative, fiscal, practical approach" to budgeting. McDonnell added his way is a model for reducing the "dependence of people on government." Fox Business described it as "an amazing story."

So amazing, in fact, that it deserves a closer look. Indeed, there's a key detail about Virginia's surplus that Republican leaders and their media outlets hope you'll overlook.

Gov. Bob McDonnell decries rising federal spending, but a handout from Washington is helping him balance Virginia's cash-strapped budget, a fiscal think tank says.

If not for $2.5 billion from President Barack Obama's economic-stimulus program, the state's shortfall would have swelled from more than $4 billion to nearly $5.5 billion, according to the Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis.

Michael J. Cassidy, institute president, said yesterday that the federal aid helped shrink the hole by 16 percent, allowing Virginia -- at the height of the recession -- to avert "further cuts to key areas like health care, education and public safety."

For all the Republican praise of McDonnell and criticism of President Obama, this gang neglects to mention that McDonnell's budget surplus likely wouldn't exist were it not for Obama's help.

What's more, also note that while McDonnell depends on the dreaded federal government to pay his bills, he's also playing budget games to make his surplus look bigger than it is, accelerating how the sales tax would count and borrowing from public-worker pension system.

And best of all, the focus is on the wrong metric. McDonnell is receiving praise, not for creating jobs or generating economic growth, but for balancing a budget (which wouldn't be balanced were it not for Obama). But eliminating deficits shouldn't be the goal -- boosting the economy should be the top priority. Republicans are excited about an accomplishment that doesn't matter.

In this case, McDonnell has eyed moves that don't help the economy at all, including putting more state workers out of work, and "slashing services for children and the sick."

Republicans consider this "an amazing story." That's not the adjective I'd use.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

'LET'S DO AS FOX NEWS COMMANDS, AND FOLLOW THE MONEY'.... "The Daily Show" is known for occasionally skewering Fox News, but some segments are truly special. Last night offered just such an episode.

On "Fox & Friends" yesterday, the Republican network continued in its campaign to destroy the reputation of Faisal Abdul Rauf, the head of the Park51 project that Fox News used to find unobjectionable. As part of the shameless smear, "Fox & Friends" is "following the money trail," asking questions like, "Where is this money coming from? ... This guy has questionable ties."

Former Bush administration official Dan Senor appeared on "Fox & Friends" and pushed a fairly specific angle: "The Kingdom Foundation, which has been a funder of Imam Rauf in the past, the Kingdom Foundation, so you know, is this Saudi organization headed up by the guy who tried to give Rudy Giuliani $10 million after 9/11 that was sent back. He funds radical madrassas all over the world." Brian Kilmeade added, "And he funds this imam."

That's not all he funds.

"The guy" Fox News is so upset about is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who has extended support to Rauf. But Jon Stewart also brought up the inconvenient fact that the largest News Corp shareholder outside the Murdoch family is ... the Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

"That's right. The guy they're painting as a sinister money force owns part of Fox News. Let's do as Fox News commands, and follow the money:

"This is the proposed 'terror mosque.' We know that it's a terror mosque, because the money may be coming from a bad guy, who definitely owns part of Fox News. Now we know that he's a bad guy, because we just heard it on Fox News. And by hearing it on Fox News, watching Fox News, I'm increasing their viewership, and their advertising rates go up. Now part of that money goes to the bad guy we learned about on Fox, because he's their part-owner, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, allowing him then to 'make it rain,' so to speak, on the terror mosque.

"My point is this. If we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must, together as a nation, STOP WATCHING FOX! It's the only way! Using their reasoning, it's the only way to cut off the revenue stream to these 'bad dudes.'"

That's extremely funny, and an extremely good point. Fox News wants Americans to believe Al-Waleed bin Talal is responsible for funding Islamic radicalism. Fox News doesn't want Americans to know that Al-Waleed bin Talal is also responsible for funding Fox News.

If we should necessarily look askance at projects financed by this Saudi prince, it's only logical to suspect Fox News of wrongdoing, if not terrorist sympathies -- since, after all, some of it's financial backing comes from the same guy funding "radical madrassas" and the Burlington Coat Factory community center.

Also note, during the Fox News broadcast, the various Republican media personalities refused to actually say Al-Waleed bin Talal's name, prompting a delightful discussion on "The Daily Show" about whether Fox News is "staggeringly, achingly, almost inspiringly stupid," or "really fu**ing evil."

Take the time to watch this one. You'll be glad you did. The only decision now is whether to start reflexively referring to Fox News, just as a matter of course, as being financed by questionable Saudi royalty with ties to radicals.

Postscript: Faiz Shakir also notes this morning that the Arab News, just today, published a photo of Prince Al-Waleed "meeting with News Corp executives to discuss how to 'further strengthen the strategic corporate alliance between Rotana and News Corp.'"

They don't even have the decency to hide their dangerous foreign financiers....

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* It's primary day in Florida, Vermont, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alaska. Among the statewide races to keep an eye on, other than the Florida contests, are the five-way Democratic gubernatorial primary in Vermont, the McCain-Hayworth contest in Arizona, and the Republican Senate primary in Alaska.

* Just a week after Rep. Joe Sestak's (D) Senate campaign in Pennsylvania won an endorsement from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), the retired three-star Navy admiral won the support this week of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D) new ad in Nevada reminds voters that Sharron Angle (R) has opposed an effort to save school teachers' jobs and has demanded that the government shut down the Department of Education. It's part of the "too extreme" message.

* The Arkansas AFL-CIO has announced that it will not endorse a candidate in the state's U.S. Senate race. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) could no doubt use the help, but her hostility towards labor made the union's announcement easy to predict.

* In Louisiana, a poll conducted by WWL-TV and other local stations shows Sen. David Vitter (R) leading Rep. Charlie Melancon (D), 48% to 36%.

* The GOP primary in Florida 24th congressional district is getting so vicious, the chairman of the NRCC said this week, "It makes me sick to my stomach."

* In West Virginia's Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin (D) appears to be off to a good start, leading John Raese (R) in one recent poll, 54% to 32%.

* In New York, gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino (R) has suggested transforming state prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where low-income Americans would be trained in, among other things, "personal hygiene."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE STEELE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND MODERN COMMUNICATIONS.... There was a point, before media satellites and the Internet, when political figures found it relatively easy to cater their messages to specific audiences. Candidates and party leaders could offer one message to one constituency, and an opposing message to a related constituency, confident that the contradictory rhetoric wouldn't be noticed.

Those days are largely a thing of the past. Someone probably ought to tell Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

Last month, the embattled RNC chief was caught distancing himself from his party's line on the war in Afghanistan. This month, Steele suggested to Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language network, that his party is not fully on board with Arizona's notorious anti-immigrant law. Asked how Hispanic-American voters might respond to Steele's outreach in the wake of Arizona's measure, he replied:

"Well, let's be clear. The actions of one state's governor is not a reflection of an entire country, nor is it a reflection of an entire political party. The governor and the people of Arizona made a decision that they thought was in their best interest, and that's the beauty of a republic, that's who we are. [...]

"We hope, now that this debate is in full bloom, level heads will prevail and that we'll reach a common sense solution with regards to immigration."

To be sure, that's not a total repudiation of the Arizona statute, but it's hard to interpret this as anything but an effort to put some distance between the Republican Party and the state measure.

And that relates back to Steele's larger problem (or one of them, at least). He wants to be able to tell the angry, anti-immigrant right-wing base that the Republican Party is taking bold steps like supporting Arizona's SB1070. He also wants to be able to tell Univision's audience that the Republican Party shouldn't necessarily be seen as anti-immigrant at all. But in an age of modern communications, both groups are now aware of what Steele is telling the other -- and now no one is inclined to trust him.

Amanda Terkel, now writing for the Huffington Post, added, "Most other national GOP figures have defended the legislation and sharply criticized the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona."

Quite right. One wonders what they'll think of their party leader's remarks to Univision.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

BOEHNER CLAIMS IMAGINARY CREDIBILITY, PRETENDS TO BE A GROWN-UP.... In the early 1990s, John Boehner (R-Ohio) was absolutely convinced that President Clinton's economic agenda would be a disaster. He was wrong. Early on in the last decade, Boehner couldn't have been more certain that President Bush's economic agenda would generate incredible prosperity. Wrong again. And last year, Boehner just knew that President Obama's recovery efforts wouldn't help the economy at all. Strike three.

Boehner, in other words, is one of those rare officials with an uninterrupted track record of complete and total failure. It's reminiscent of the "Seinfeld" episode in which George Costanza realizes that all of his instincts and decisions are entirely backwards, and begins doing the opposite of what he's inclined to do.

Only George recognized that all of his decisions were wrong. Boehner looks back at his two decades of breathtaking misjudgments, and concludes that he's not only credible on economic policy, but he's also in a position to lecture those who are trying to clean up his mess.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, was set on Tuesday to call on President Obama to fire his economic advisers as Mr. Boehner tried to lay out an economic case for restoring Congressional Republicans to power in the November elections.

In a speech to be delivered at the City Club of Cleveland, Mr. Boehner planned to unveil a five-point plan that he said would provide a better economic alternative to the Democrats' current course.

In addition to encouraging Mr. Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire, Mr. Boehner will say the president should seek and accept the resignations of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, the head of the National Economic Council.

Reading the text as written for delivery, it seemed like a series of tired talking points, just sewn together. Did you know John Boehner loves tax cuts? And hates cap-and-trade, health care reform, and card-check? Who would have guessed?

Boehner's vision is absurd; his credibility is non-existent; and his policy prescription is a joke. I realize that he's trying to position himself as a future Speaker of the House -- today represents an audition of sorts -- and even had the audacity to include this in his speech: "It's time to put grown-ups in charge. It's time for people willing to accept responsibility."

But that's crazy. Boehner should be begging for forgiveness, not power. If he's willing to "accept responsibility," he can start by acknowledging that his ideal economic agenda -- the one tried from 2001 to 2008 -- was an abysmal failure. Indeed, the centerpiece of what Boehner calls a "fresh start" is an extension of the Bush-era tax policies that led to weak growth, a stunted job market, and a massive deficit.

This "fresh start" is literally just the Bush/Cheney agenda -- Bush's tax rates, Bush's regulatory structure, Bush's domestic policies -- coupled with a vague promise to cut spending somewhere, at some time, affecting someone.

As for putting "grown-ups in charge," maybe now would be a good time to point out that the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein recently described Boehner and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor as "the Bart Simpsons of Congress, gleeful at smarmy and adolescent tactics and unable and unwilling to get serious."

Boehner genuinely seems to believe that if we just go back to the policies that got us into this mess, maybe they'll work this time. That agenda already failed once, and it doesn't make a lick of sense, but that's no reason not to give it another shot, right? Boehner hopes, in other words, that a national amnesia has swept the land.

And who knows, maybe it has. But for anyone who has a shred of understanding of recent events, Boehner's extended whine today is impossible to take seriously.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

AN RNC MEMBER BELIEVES HER LYING EYES.... Why do so many Americans continue to believe nonsense about President Obama's faith? Iowa's Kim Lehman offers a fascinating example. (thanks to reader M.M. for the tip)

Iowa's Republican national committeewoman said today that she believes President Barack Obama is truly a Muslim, contradicting his earlier statements that he's a Christian.

Kim Lehman, who is one of Iowa's two national Republican Committee members, may be one of the first national committee members to publicly state she believes Obama is a Muslim.

Don't worry, Lehman has proof. She explained late last week that the president "personally told the Muslims that he IS a Muslim" [emphasis in the original]. Lehman was referring to a speech Obama delivered last year in Cairo, in which the president said, "I'm a Christian."

Lehman went on to say that the speech, emphasizing the need for international cooperation and the need for respect for Muslims throughout the West, "had a sense of embracing or aligning with the Muslims. I don't know. It was unnecessary the stuff he said."

She didn't specify what "stuff" was "unnecessary." She also didn't explain how she came to believe the "sense" that the president was saying something he never said.

Lehman went on to say that her own humiliating ignorance isn't nearly as important as the pressure that should be put on Obama. "He's the one that the news is about. It isn't about me," she said. "Call the president.... Say, 'Are you a Christian or not?'"

We've been through this. Obama told Christianity Today, for example, "I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

The willful ignorance of Republican officials is as ugly as it is bizarre.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

HALPERIN BLASTS OBAMA FOR TELLING THE TRUTH, CRITICIZING GOP.... In his latest Time column, Mark Halperin expresses his deep disappointment in President Obama and Democrats for criticizing Republicans over Social Security. It seems much of the GOP has plans to undermine, if not completely privatize, the program, and leading Dems -- get this -- hope to tell voters about it.

In a move as predictable as Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, Democrats are using Social Security scare tactics to gain ground before the November election. President Barack Obama is not only tolerating this classic old politics maneuver by his party -- he is leading the charge.

Amid a flurry of Democratic Party news releases and press conferences warning voters that Republicans are targeting Social Security for destruction, the President devoted his radio and Internet address last week to commemorating the 75th anniversary of the signing of the law that created the program. He cautioned that "some Republican leaders in Congress don't seem to have learned any lessons" from the past and are "pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress." This familiar refrain might indeed help the Democrats limit their midterm losses, but Obama's involvement shows that on this issue he is putting party before bipartisanship....

There's a key detail that Halperin largely overlooks: everything Obama said was true. Every word. The leading GOP lawmaker on the House Budget Committee wants to privatize Social Security, and his idea has been endorsed by a wide variety of Republican officials and candidates. In Nevada, Sharron Angle has called for eliminating Social Security altogether, and her position has not be denounced by party leaders.

One high-profile House Republican recently called for the government to "wean everybody" off Social Security. A day later, another House Republican endorsed Social Security privatization. Two days later, yet another House Republican endorsed Social Security privatization. All of this happened just this year.

So, with an election coming up, leading Democrats believe voters should be aware of GOP priorities. Halperin believes that's wrong -- Dems in general and the president in specific shouldn't talk about a campaign issue on which Republicans are vulnerable, because it might make them less likely to compromise on the issue later.

In other words, even in a competitive election season, after Dems identify their rival's key vulnerability, they shouldn't say anything, even if it's true. Instead, as Halperin sees it, Democrats should be making an effort to be nicer to the party that's trying to destroy them, in the hopes that a GOP that's shown no interest in compromise might suddenly become more amenable to a "bipartisan partnership."

I don't understand it, either.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

THE FED WANTS TO SIT ON ITS HANDS.... When considering the Federal Reserve's principal goals, the obvious focus is on preventing inflation. It's easy to forget that the Fed is also required to pursue full employment -- which would put the national unemployment rate at 4% (as opposed to around 10%, which is where the rate stands now).

It's so easy to forget, in fact, that the Fed itself seems to be paying no attention at all to this part of its mandate. Two weeks ago, with confidence in an economic recovery fading, the Fed agreed to "use the proceeds from its huge mortgage-bond portfolio to buy long-term Treasury securities," which was, quite literally, the least it could do. In effect, the move was an effort to maintain the status quo, not helping the economy grow and not letting it contract.

The Wall Street Journal reports today, however, that even getting the Fed to agree to this exceedingly modest step was like pulling teeth -- suggesting more meaningful steps from the Federal Reserve are off the table entirely. (via Kevin Drum)

The Aug. 10 meeting of top Federal Reserve officials was among the most contentious in Ben Bernanke's four-and-a-half year tenure as central bank chairman.

With the economic outlook unexpectedly darkening, the issue was a seemingly technical one: whether to alter the way the Fed manages its huge portfolio of securities.

But it had big implications: Doing so would plunge the Fed back into the markets and might be a prelude to a future easing of monetary policy, moves that divided the men and women atop the central bank.

At least seven of the 17 Fed officials gathered around the massive oval boardroom table, made of Honduran mahogany and granite, spoke against the proposal or expressed reservations. At the end of an extended debate, Mr. Bernanke settled the issue by pushing successfully to proceed with the move.

The debate over the decision to keep the Fed's $2.05 trillion stock of mortgage debt and U.S. Treasury holdings from shrinking, described in interviews with several participants, set the stage for a more consequential discussion inside the Fed that remains very much alive: what to do next, if anything, about America's stubbornly weak recovery and troublingly low inflation.

In all, of the 17 Fed officials at the meeting, no more than a few voiced support for intervening to improve economic conditions. Even if President Obama's nominees weren't stuck in the Senate, waiting for confirmation, most of the Fed just doesn't want to act.

So, what are we left with? An economy that's struggling badly, a political process paralyzed by Republicans who refuse to allow votes on meaningful economic legislation, a Fed content to sit on its hands, and voters who've been led to believe government spending is "bad."

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

STEM-CELL SETBACK CALLED 'ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING'.... Legal experts and policy specialists are still trying to sort out the implications of yesterday's preliminary injunction, but by all indications, it's a major blow to American medical research and scientific advancement.

A federal district judge on Monday blocked President Obama's 2009 executive order that expanded embryonic stem cell research, saying it violated a ban on federal money being used to destroy embryos.

The ruling came as a shock to scientists at the National Institutes of Health and at universities across the country, which had viewed the Obama administration's new policy and the grants provided under it as settled law. Scientists scrambled Monday evening to assess the ruling's immediate impact on their work.

"I have had to tell everyone in my lab that when they feed their cells tomorrow morning, they better use media that has not been funded by the federal government," said Dr. George Q. Daley, director of the stem cell transplantation program at Children's Hospital Boston, referring to food given to cells. "This ruling means an immediate disruption of dozens of labs doing this work since the Obama administration made its order."

In his ruling, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that his temporary injunction returned federal policy to the "status quo," but few officials, scientists or lawyers in the case were sure Monday night what that meant.

The court order, delivered by a notoriously conservative Reagan appointee, seems intent on turning back the clock many years. Ian Millhiser explained, "Essentially, Judge Lamberth claims that all ESC research cannot be funded because it requires scientists to build upon previous research that involved the destruction of an embryo, but it's difficult to square this decision with Supreme Court precedent. Under Chevron v. NRDC, judges are normally supposed to defer to an agency's reading of a federal law unless the agency's interpretation is entirely implausible, and the Obama administration quite plausibly read the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to only prohibit federal funding of the actual destruction of an embryo -- not federal funding of subsequent ESC research."

Certainly, the ambiguity doesn't help. Lamberth' injunction leaves unclear exactly what medical researchers are supposed to do when they show up for work this morning -- do scientists now have to operate under Bush-era rules, or does the order turn the clock back to pre-2001? Is all research regarding embryonic stem cells illegal?

Dr. Irving L. Weissman, director of the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, said the ruling was "devastating to the hopes of researchers and patients who have been waiting so long for the promise of stem cell therapies." Amy Comstock Rick, immediate past president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, struck a similar note, calling yesterday's news "absolutely devastating."

"We were really looking forward to research finally moving forward with the full backing of the NIH. We were really looking forward to the next chapter when human embryonic stem cells could really be explored for their full potential. This really sets us back," Rick said. "Every day we lose is another day lost for patients waiting for cures."

Others can speak to the legal proceedings with more expertise than I can, and it was at least somewhat heartening to see one lawyer weigh in describing the judge's order as "quite vulnerable; it's not on solid ground at all."

I'd just note as an aside, though, that the breakdown in the Senate's ability to fill judicial vacancies often has sweeping national and international implications -- in the matter of medical research, possibly even issues of life and death.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 23, 2010

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* This doesn't sound good: "A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue."

* This was opposed by many Republicans on the Hill, but it should help a lot of folks: "The sweeping reform of the credit card industry was finally completed Sunday as the last pieces of the landmark federal law designed to stop unfair or deceptive practices took effect. The final phase restricts how much card issuers can charge in penalty fees compared with the amount of the violation. For example, if you are late paying a credit card bill with a $10 minimum payment, the penalty charge cannot be more than $10."

* Xe reaches a settlement: "The private security company formerly called Blackwater Worldwide, long plagued by accusations of impropriety, has reached an agreement with the State Department for the company to pay $42 million in fines for hundreds of violations of United States export control regulations."

* The Cooch is always up to no good: "Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, who is anti-abortion, has issued a legal opinion allowing greater restrictions on abortion clinics, drawing swift criticism from providers who say it could cause some of the facilities to close."

* Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) shows 'em how it's done.

* Media Matters has some new thoughts to share about Fox News getting a front-row seat in the White House press room. News Corp's $1 million check to the RGA changes things.

* A Texas Republican House candidate in Texas doesn't want to commit to supporting Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). That's interesting.

* Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) believes conditions in Afghanistan are improving, thanks to the escalation. I really hope he's right, but I seem to recall Graham making very similar remarks in 2004 and 2005 about Iraq.

* How far gone is former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa./Va.)? He's praising Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for "the quality of his arguments." Wow.

* And finally, on a personal note, yesterday was my two-year anniversary since joining the Washington Monthly team. Thanks to everyone -- readers, editors, publishers, and staff -- for all the support.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share

CAREFUL WHAT YOU THINK AT SOME THINK TANKS.... The Cato Institute, a leading institution for conservative libertarians, will no longer be the home of some high-profile scholars, who may be part of yet another think-tank purge.

Brink Lindsey, who helped oversee Cato research, and Will Wilkinson, the editor of "Cato Unbound," are both headed for new professional homes. Dave Weigel highlights the larger context.

I asked for comment on this and was told that the institute does not typically comment on personnel matters. But you have to struggle not to see a political context to this. Lindsey and Wilkinson are among the Cato scholars who most often find common cause with liberals. In 2006, after the GOP lost Congress, Lindsey coined the term "Liberaltarians" to suggest that Libertarians and liberals could work together outside of the conservative movement. Shortly after this, he launched a dinner series where liberals and Libertarians met to discuss big ideas. (Disclosure: I attended some of these dinners.)

In 2009 and 2010, as the libertarian movement moved back into the right's fold, Lindsey remained iconoclastic -- just last month he penned a rare, biting criticism of The Battle, a book by AEI President Arthur Brooks which argues that economic theory is at the center of a new American culture war.

I'm not privy to the internal personnel discussions at Cato, so my take is obviously speculative. But Cato was home to two widely-read, well-respected "liberaltarians," and both are out, just as the think tank becomes even more conservative? One need not be a conspiracy theorist to suspect an ideological purge.

But what's especially interesting to me is how often we've seen moves like these in recent years. David Frum was forced out at the American Enterprise Institute after failing to toe the Republican Party line. Bruce Bartlett was shown the door at the National Center for Policy Analysis for having the audacity to criticize George W. Bush's incoherent economic policies.

In perhaps the most notable example, John Hulsman was a senior foreign policy analyst at the right's largest think tank, the Heritage Foundation. Hulsman was a conservative in good standing -- appearing regularly on Fox News and on the Washington Times' op-ed page, blasting Democrats -- right up until he expressed his disapproval of the neoconservatives' approach to foreign policy. At that point, Heritage threw him overboard. Cato's Chris Preble said at the time, "At Heritage, anything that smacks of criticism of Bush will not be tolerated."

A few years later, Cato seems to be moving in a very similar direction.

Intellectually, modern conservatism is facing a painfully sad state of affairs.

Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

PAUL VS. PAUL... Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), for all of his faults, tends to be a pretty consistent Libertarian. He has a specific worldview -- one I happen to find hopelessly misguided -- but Paul generally tends to be intellectually honest enough to stick to that worldview.

With that in mind, it was heartening, though not necessarily surprising, to see Ron Paul issue a fairly strong condemnation of his allies for their ugly demagoguery related to the proposed Park51 community center.

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."

Paul didn't hold back. He argues that the debate itself was initiated by neocons, exploiting anti-Muslim bigotry and manipulating the public through propaganda. He notes the polls showing opposition to the community center, but insists that "majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society -- protecting liberty."

The uproar, Paul concludes, "is all about hate and Islamaphobia."

From a Libertarian perspective, this makes perfect sense. We are, after all, talking about a private real-estate transaction between the owners of a former clothing store and those hoping to build a community center. As far as Libertarian adherents are concerned, the notion of political officials intervening, demanding that a religious group build a private facility five blocks away from Ground Zero instead of two-and-a-half away, is absurd.

What's interesting, though, is that Ron Paul's essay is specifically at odds with Rand Paul's political rhetoric in Kentucky. While the elder takes a principled stand in support of American ideas, the younger, running a bizarre Senate campaign, is doing precisely the things his father finds offensive.

Just last week, Rand Paul's campaign said the community center's construction would run counter to "the healing process." In fact, while some on the right want Park51 moved elsewhere, Rand Paul has suggested the facility shouldn't be built at all -- his campaign said all of the money that would construct the building should instead go a 9/11 memorial and/or victims' families.

In context, the father doesn't have to worry about re-election, while the son has to exploit anti-Muslim animus to win a competitive Senate campaign in a different state. But the lesson here is nevertheless interesting -- Rand Paul not only has a radical worldview, he has a radical worldview that he doesn't fully understand. Despite all the Ayn Rand novels and speeches to fringe groups, these concepts shouldn't be hard for the right-wing ophthalmologist to understand. He's either confused about his own principles, or he's cast them aside in the hopes of winning an election.

Rand Paul's beliefs are troublesome; his intellectual inconsistencies are worse.

Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

COLLEGE RANKINGS THAT AREN'T RIDICULOUS.... Today the Washington Monthly releases its annual College Rankings. This is our answer to U.S. News & World Report, which relies on crude and easily manipulated measures of wealth, exclusivity, and prestige for its rankings. Instead, we rate schools based on what they are doing for the country -- on whether they're improving social mobility, producing research, and promoting public service.

The Washington Monthly's unique methodology yields strikingly different results.

* Yale and Princeton, two of U.S. News's perennial darlings, once again fail even to crack our top 20. Instead, schools like the University of California San Diego, our number one national university this year, and South Carolina State University, a school relegated to a bottom tier in U.S. News, leave several members of the Ivy League in the dust.

* Morehouse College, a historically black, all-male institution in Atlanta, beats out Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, and other name-brand schools to become the top liberal arts college in America, according to our measures.

* In our first-ever rankings of Master's Universities, a category of schools that often gets overlooked in national ratings, we shine a spotlight on the largely unknown St. Mary's University in San Antonio, which comes out ahead of such elites as Wesleyan, Wellesley, and Pomona.

* While all the top twenty U.S. News universities are private, thirteen of the top twenty Washington Monthly universities are public.

* Women's liberal arts colleges score well in the Washington Monthly rankings, with Bryn Mawr, Spelman, and Wellesley all in the Top 10.

In addition, this year we turn our attention to a vast category of schools that other college guides never bother to evaluate: community colleges. While U.S. News glorifies schools that promise to initiate their students into the elite, the best community colleges serve a far more important mission: granting low-income and minority students admission into the middle class. We agree with the Obama administration that these two-year schools are a key to America's future, and so we've ranked the top 50 of them to show that excellence isn't only the province of wealthy, exclusive institutions. In fact, we found that the best community colleges -- schools like Saint Paul College in Minnesota, our #1 -- offer educations that rival those at elite four-year institutions.

We want people to use this information to change the way they think about colleges and universities, which is the first step toward changing the institutions themselves. And make no mistake: with tuition rising faster than health care costs, big changes are necessary, and they're coming. That's why we're also proud of our College Guide Web site, devoted to higher education reform -- a subject we believe will be one of the big emerging stories of the coming decade. Take a look.

Steve Benen 1:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN BUDGET CUTS GO TO THE EXTREME.... There's been a fair amount of attention lately on the kind of budget cuts states and municipalities have been forced to make during lean times. Hawaii is going to a four-day school week; an Atlanta suburb has shut down its public bus system; and parts of Colorado Springs are going without streetlights to save money on electricity.

Paul Krugman added in a recent column, "[A] country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel."

But Alyssa Battistoni flagged a report I'd overlooked last week:

It has come to this: Parents are now being asked to send their children to school with their own toilet paper. And not just toilet paper, but all sorts of basic items that schools themselves used to provide for kids. It's all part of a disturbing trend, highlighted by the New York Times last week, of cash-strapped public schools -- their budgets eviscerated by state cutbacks -- shifting more and more financial responsibility onto parents.

This isn't an exaggerated anecdote. The NYT report noted that schools that used to simply require students to bring in glue, scissors, and crayons, are now demanding that families provide everything from paper towels to garbage bags to liquid soap.

Pre-kindergartners in the Joshua school district in Texas have to track down Dixie cups and paper plates, while students at New Central Elementary in Havana, Ill., and Mesa Middle School in Castle Rock, Colo., must come to class with a pack of printer paper. Wet Swiffer refills and plastic cutlery are among the requests from St. Joseph School in Seattle. And at Pauoa Elementary School in Honolulu, every student must show up with a four-pack of toilet paper.

As Natasha Chart put it, "Because nothing says 'superpower' like when your public schools can't afford toilet paper."

It's probably worth noting that raising taxes on the wealthy, just a little, back to the levels seen in the 1990s when the economy was booming, could help make much of this far less necessary. We live in the wealthiest country in the planet, but as officials fight to cut spending and reduce taxes on the wealthy, we're left with often-ridiculous cuts and children who have to bring toilet paper to school.

Battistoni concluded, "The best-case scenario is that the impact of these cuts will help people understand just what their tax dollars are paying for and spur greater consciousness about the relationship between public spending and public goods. Now that shortages of teachers and books are spreading to suburbia, we'll decide that shortfalls in education funding are unacceptable after all. The worst-case scenario, though, is that reduced public spending on essential goods and services will continue to hollow out our infrastructure and reduce our capacity to meet the needs of most Americans."

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... In March 2009, RNC Chairman Michael Steele guest-hosted Bill Bennett's nationally syndicated conservative radio show, and offered several insightful observations. Most notably, Steele insisted that evidence of global warming is "part of the cooling process." To help prove his point, the RNC chairman said, "Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this."

Steele added, "Education is key."

We all had a good chuckle, but a year and a half later, Ron Johnson, the leading Republican Senate candidate in Wisconsin this year, is sharing a nearly identical thought.

[O]n the subject of climate change, Johnson reiterated his belief that the rise in Earth's temperature is caused by sunspots, not carbon dioxide emissions, and that it's all part of an ongoing natural cycle.

"There's a reason Greenland was called Greenland," he said. "It was actually green at one point in time. And it's been, since, it's a whole lot whiter now."

This was, by the way, in the same interview in which Johnson said all scientific evidence related to global warming is "lunacy," and its proponents are "crazy." Asked about his own perceptions, Johnson said global warming is likely the result of "sunspot activity," which doesn't make any sense.

As for the notion that there's "a reason Greenland was called Greenland," I'm not at all sure what, exactly, Ron Johnson is trying to say. This isn't my area of expertise -- the smart money says it's not Johnson's area of expertise, either -- but as I understand it, Greenland got its name as a matter of public relations. The goal was to make it more enticing to potential settlers concerned about its location. Its relation to the climate debate is dubious, at best.

I imagine that if the RNC hired a science advisor, she'd be the single most bored person in American politics.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* With Florida's high-profile primaries on deck for tomorrow, there's a flurry of new data to consider. In the Republican gubernatorial primary, Mason-Dixon shows state Attorney General Bill McCollum out in front of Rick Scott by nine points (45% to 36%); Quinnipiac shows McCollum up by four points (39% to 35%); while Public Policy Polling shows Scott ahead by seven points (47% to 40%).

* As for the Sunshine State's Democratic U.S. Senate primary, Mason-Dixon shows Rep. Kendrick Meek out in front of Jeff Greeene by 12 points (42% to 30%); Quinnipiac shows Meek up by 10 points (39% to 29%); while Public Policy Polling shows Meek ahead by 24 points (51% to 27%).

* Arizona will also hold its Republican U.S. Senate primary tomorrow, and while the race was at one time expected to be competitive, Sen. John McCain, after spending heavily, is now expected to easily dispatch former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

* The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's priorities for the fall are beginning to take shape, with the DSCC "reserving millions of dollars in TV airtime during the month before the election in four competitive states." On the list: Missouri and Kentucky (Republican pick-up opportunities), and Pennsylvania and Colorado (protecting Democratic seats).

* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will practically be a third party this year, investing $75 million in the 2010 midterms. Nearly all, if not literally all, of the money will help conservative Republicans.

* The latest candidate to exploit 9/11 imagery for personal gain? New York gubernatorial hopeful Rick Lazio (R).

* The Senate race in the state of Washington is getting a little messy for Republicans, with Tea Party favorite Clint Didier refusing to endorse Dino Rossi in the wake of last week's primary.

* Borrowing a page from his father's playbook, Kentucky Senate hopeful Rand Paul (R) hosted a two-day "money bomb" last week. It didn't go well -- the campaign raised $258,000, far short of its $400,000-plus goal.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

THE REVERENCE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL STONE FADES AWAY.... It wasn't too long ago that Glenn Beck was sick of hearing about proposed changes to the U.S. Constitution: "We're running it through the shredder every time somebody wants to do [with it] what they want to do.... It took these guys a long time. They read a lot of books and a lot of history to put the principles together in this thing."

The right's line on the Constitution has changed a bit since. While some still talk about the need for "constitutional conservatives" -- a phrase that seems to be a euphemism for Tenthers -- the AP notes today that Republicans are now "hot and cold on the Constitution."

Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for -- lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

I knew they'd recommended more than a few, but 42? In fairness, many of these are probably just symbolic gestures that proponents aren't seriously pushing. Indeed, even if there were a Republican Congress, most of these 42 likely wouldn't even get so much as a hearing, better yet a vote.

But when a small congressional minority, allegedly known for their constitutional fealty, proposed 42 amendments in one Congress, it starts to look like a party treating the document as a first draft. (In contrast, Dems have proposed 27 amendments, most of which come from one member: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois.)

And then, of course, there are also the existing amendments Republicans would like to see at least partially, if not fully, repealed. As we've talked about before, the new conservative agenda is focused on scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, and "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment.

Holding up the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, for example, while dismissing other parts of the Constitution is "cherry picking," said [constitutional law scholar Mark] Kende, director of Drake University's Constitutional Law Center.

Virginia Sloan, an attorney who directs the nonpartisan Constitution Project, agreed.

"There are a lot of people who obviously don't like income taxes. That's a political position," she said of criticism of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the modern federal income tax more than a century ago. "But it's in the Constitution ... and I don't think you can go around saying something is unconstitutional just because you don't like it."

Oh, just watch them.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

AT STAKE IN THE TAX POLICY DEBATE.... Roll Call noted this morning that the Senate is moving towards "an epic election-year battle over Bush-era tax cuts." That sounds about right.

The dispute helps capture exactly what the two parties prioritize right now -- Dems want to keep lower rates for the middle class, while at least starting to address deficit concerns by letting the rich go back to the rates they paid when the economy was healthy. Republicans want to hold the Dem proposal hostage, fighting tooth and nail for breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and adding $680 billion to the deficit the GOP pretended to care about for a while.

Paul Krugman explains that much of the debate is focused around the conservative drive to "cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country."

[W]here would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few -- the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year -- would be $3 million over the course of the next decade. [...]

[W]e're told that it's all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Or we're told that it's about helping the economy recover. But it's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren't likely to spend a windfall.

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it's about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won't take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let's hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America's future.

Dems may not realize it, but the public really is with them on this, more so than on most contentious issues. More centrist Democrats running in competitive red-state races -- in Missouri and Kentucky, for example -- have already sided with the GOP position, but in general, Dems need not fear a backlash. Their position in this election season is the popular one.

As for small businesses, Krugman noted how wrong Republican talking points are, but I'd just add that if the GOP really care about this segment of the economy, it wouldn't have blocked a vote on a paid-for package of small-business tax breaks and incentives.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

Bookmark and Share

ENERGIZING MORE THAN JUST THE GOP BASE.... For nearly eight years, the right had a simple mantra when it came to defending the Bush/Cheney White House against criticism from the left: liberals were emboldening terrorists. If there was another large-scale attack, it'd be our fault.

It's hard to overstate how common this was. The left was constantly reminded that al Qaeda had access to modern communications, and could monitor American media. If Democrats, liberals, and other Bush detractors made us appear divided in a time of crisis, and sent a signal to the world that the Commander in Chief lacked Americans' support, we'd look weak and invite terrorism. Progressives in America, the argument went, were -- deliberately or not -- helping our enemies.

In the summer of 2010, it's interesting to see just how much has changed.

Islamic radicals are seizing on protests against a planned Islamic community center near Manhattan's Ground Zero and anti-Muslim rhetoric elsewhere as a propaganda opportunity and are stepping up anti-U.S. chatter and threats on their websites.

One jihadist site vowed to conduct suicide bombings in Florida to avenge a threatened Koran burning, while others predicted an increase in terrorist recruits as a result of such actions. [...]

A U.S. official on Sunday said the administration was taking the upswing in anti-U.S. chatter seriously. "Terrorists like al-Qaeda and its violent allies are motivated already to try to attack the United States, but when it comes to propaganda, extremists are pure opportunists. They'll use whatever they can," the official said.

And the right is giving them all kinds of fodder to work with, isn't it?

"We are handing al Qaeda a propaganda coup, an absolute propaganda coup," with the Islamic-center controversy, said Evan Kohlmann, an independent terrorism consultant at Flashpoint Partners who monitors jihadist websites.

Just to be very clear here, I'm not suggesting Republicans and conservative activists are siding with terrorists, or doing their bidding. While words like "treason," "traitor," "fifth columnists," and "Tokyo Rose" comparisons were thrown around casually by prominent conservatives from 2001 to 2008, I think it'd be a mistake for the left to play a similarly odious game now.

I do, however, find it interesting that the same people who said liberal rhetoric literally undermined U.S. national security interests during the Bush era seem largely oblivious to the international effects of their right-wing activism now.

Whether Republicans realize it or not, by pitting Americans against one another, and using anti-Islam animus as an election-season strategy, the right is motivating more than just the GOP base.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

A SIMPLE QUESTION THAT DESERVES A SIMPLE ANSWER.... Way back in March 2008, Hillary Clinton was asked on "60 Minutes" about right-wing rumors that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim. Steve Kroft said, "You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim. You don't believe that he's..." to which Clinton replied, "No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

In context, there was nothing particularly problematic about the response, but the qualifier -- "as far as I know" -- generated some controversy.

More than two years later, as a consequence of our often-ridiculous public discourse, the subject continues to generate discussion and confusion. On "Meet the Press" yesterday, David Gregory asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about the large chunk of the country that believes the nonsense about the president's faith. McConnell initially tried to stick to his talking points, saying, "The president's faith in the government to stimulate the economy is what people are questioning."

Gregory kept at it, before McConnell twice said, "I take the president at his word."

Jon Chait hears a dog-whistle.

To say that you "take him at his word" means two things. First of all, it suggests that the president's word is the only information we have to go on here. Of course, that is absurd. Second, if further suggests that, the evidence being weak or inconclusive, McConnell is taking the high road by accepting Obama's testimony.

The formulation is a way of putatively siding with the truth so that he can't be pilloried by the media, while subtly suggesting that he is open to the views of Americans who think Obama is Muslim. And, of course, if reporters recognize the sneaky little game he's playing and demand a stronger formulation, all the better! It gets more chatter about Obama and possibly being a Muslim into the news.

McConnell used the formulation twice. It's not an accident.

In fairness, McConnell, after pointing to what the president has said about his own faith, added, "I don't think that's in dispute." That's closer to what the official party line should be, but it's still short.

The correct answer is to dismiss nonsense because it's nonsense. President Obama is a Christian. He's professed his Christian faith. He and his family were members of a Christian church. He's offered public testimony about his faith, and started a prayer circle in the White House with Christian pastors. Muslims don't do any of these things.

The Americans who perceive the president as a secret Muslim are wrong. McConnell should have the courage to say so.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

ARMEY DEMANDS 'COURAGE' ON RADICAL RYAN ROADMAP.... Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the far-right lawmaker who'll head the House Budget Committee if Republicans take the House, has a fairly radical budget plan -- he calls it a "Roadmap for America's Future" -- which his party's leadership has been reluctant to embrace.

Dick Armey, apparently, is sick of it.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) on Sunday said lawmakers who have not signed onto Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to balance the budget lacked "courage" and could be targeted by the conservative tea party movement as a result.

Armey's comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" came just moments after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sidestepped a question about Ryan's plan, which looks to balance the budget by reinventing slimmer versions of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the tax code.... [...]

"All Paul Ryan is saying is let Social Security be voluntary, let Medicare be voluntary," Armey said. "The fact that he only has 13 co-sponsors is a big reason why our folks are agitated against the Republicans as well as the Democrats -- the difference between being a co-sponsor of Ryan or not is a thing called courage."

As a substantive matter, Armey's description of Ryan's proposal is absurd. The "roadmap" is a right-wing fantasy, slashing taxes on the rich while raising taxes for everyone else. The plan calls for privatizing Social Security and gutting Medicare, and fails miserably in its intended goal -- cutting the deficit. As Paul Krugman recently explained, the Ryan plan "is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future."

Having said all of that, let's not be too quick to dismiss the larger political point of Dick Armey's complaints. After all, Ryan's plan may be ridiculous, and it may seek to radically transform governmental institutions and Americans' way of life, but it's also a fairly explicit summary of how Republicans would like to govern.

Ryan himself has conceded that his GOP colleagues are too afraid to endorse a plan they agree with: "They're talking to their pollsters and their pollsters are saying, 'Stay away from this.'"

To this extent, Armey raises a reasonable argument: if Paul is putting on paper what Republicans really believe, why don't they have the courage of their convictions? Why not have the guts to endorse a budget plan that reflects their actual thinking?

Armey and Ryan think the radical roadmap should be part of the debate -- and oddly enough, I couldn't agree more. 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?

The leading GOP official on budget issues has presented a proposal. It's not unreasonable to think every Republican candidate should say, before November, whether they think it's a plan worth pursuing.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

MCCONNELL EITHER DOESN'T KNOW OR DOESN'T CARE.... Just two weeks ago on "Meet the Press," David Gregory separately asked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) how they intended to pay for their top priority: extending Bush-era tax policies for millionaires and billionaires. Both refused to answer, despite persistent follow-up questions.

Yesterday was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) turn. Gregory asked a question McConnell had to know was coming: "You and other Republicans would like to see the Bush-era tax cuts extended. The president, of course, wants to repeal them except for those on the wealthiest Americans; in other words, those taxes would go up. What are you prepared to do to pay for an extension of tax cuts for everybody?" McConnell dodged, saying the Democratic plan would hurt small businesses, which is demonstrably false.

So, Gregory tried again. McConnell replied, "Well, what, what, what, what are you talking about paid for? This is existing tax policy. It's been in place for 10 years."

Back and forth they went. The fifth time, Gregory noted that extending all of the Bush-era tax policies would add over $3 trillion to the debt over the next decade. "Do you have a plan to pay for that extension?" he asked. McConnell wouldn't budge: "You're talking about current tax policy. Why did all it of a sudden become something that may 'paid for'?"

I go back and forth on whether McConnell is strikingly ignorant about the basics of public policy, or a shrewd political hack who knows the truth, but hopes to deceive voters. There's evidence to support the former, but overall, I'd say the jury's still out.

But whether he's lying or foolish, McConnell's remarks yesterday on tax policy reflect the perspective of someone who has no idea what he's talking about. His remarks were just gibberish. As he sees it, Bush's tax policies, which Republicans set to expire at the end of the year, can be extended indefinitely, and it wouldn't add a penny to the debt, because those tax policies currently exist.

No sensible person could possibly believe such transparent nonsense. The facts are stubborn: "Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners."

That Mitch McConnell, a man who may be Senate Majority Leader next year, at least pretends not to understand this, does not speak well of Republican intellectual integrity at a critical time.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 22, 2010

CHANGE CAN APPARENTLY ONLY MOVE IN ONE DIRECTION.... I'm generally inclined to leave criticism of Pete Wehner, the former aide to Karl Rove and Minister of Propaganda for the Bush administration, to Jon Chait -- who seems to enjoy it.

But this Wehner gem deserves special attention. Politico ran an interesting item about the culture war, and the ways in which the right has responded to the Obama presidency by starting a fight over "whether he's moving the country toward socialism and over the very definition of what it means to be American." Wehner's insights on the subject were ridiculous, but important.

Pete Wehner, a former top official in the George W. Bush administration and a social conservative thinker, described the resistance to Obama as "beyond politics."

"What we're having here are debates about first principles," Wehner said. "A lot of people think he's trying to transform the country in a liberal direction in the way that Ronald Reagan did in a conservative direction. This is not the normal push and pull of politics. It gets down to the purpose and meaning of America."

Read that quote again, because it's really significant -- Obama wants to move America to the left to the same extent that Reagan moved it to the right. This, Wehner believes, is "beyond politics" and falls outside "the normal push and pull" of our political system.

Now, whether Obama really is fulfilling Wehner's vision -- serving as a liberal counter-weight to Reaganism -- is open to debate. Hell, whether Reagan really succeeded in pulling the country to the right, by the standards of 21st-century conservatives, is itself worthy of skepticism. But the key here is Wehner's overarching contention -- politics in the United States can change, but it's only allowed to move in one direction. Reagan's conservative agenda was within American norms, because it was conservative. Obama's progressive agenda deserves to be labeled radical because it's not conservative.

A Democratic presidential candidate can present a progressive agenda to the electorate; that candidate can be easily elected, giving that agenda a mandate; and in office, that successful candidate can begin making compromises to move the vision forward through a labyrinthine Congress. But if the Democrat is successful, the result is necessarily at odds with "the purpose and meaning of America."

A center-left candidate, in other words, is allowed to run, and even allowed to win. He/she is not, however, allowed to govern. Why? Because it's fundamentally unacceptable -- liberalism is not part of "the normal push and pull of politics."

It's the kind of maxim that brings the larger political landscape into sharper focus.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) recently endorsed a very similar line of thinking a few weeks ago. He told reporters that, after the midterm elections, policymaking will have to change.

"What I hope we are going to have after November is more balance, more balance, which would give us the opportunity to do things together that simply were missing when you have this kind of disparity," McConnell said. "But, I'm not going to be very interested in doing things left of center. It is going to have to be center-right. I think the president is a flexible man. I'm hoping he will become a born-again moderate."

On its face, this seems idiotic. A "balanced" approach to lawmaking, McConnell argued, reflects a system in which the left gets nothing, and everything has to be center-right. Indeed, a "moderate" Democratic president would have no choice but to agree that every proposal be right of center.

But with Wehner's contention in mind, the coherence of McConnell's seemingly-insane demand comes through -- of course McConnell sees his way as an example of "balance"; in American politics, the left necessarily has to lose every dispute. Ideas are "balanced" if they strike a compromise between the right and the far-right.

Looking back over the last year and a half, it's hard to overstate how illustrative this is. The GOP line with the Obama White House has always been the same: "I'm willing to compromise with you, unless it means you getting some of what you want, in which case, forget it." This is precisely the kind of thinking, for example, that leads Republicans to embrace 80% of the Democratic health care plan, but nevertheless literally characterize it as "Armageddon" when it passes -- the left got some of what it wanted, which necessarily made the bill un-American.

Republicans really should just drop the pretense, and forget words like "balance" and "the normal push and pull of politics." What they mean isn't ambiguous: only Republicans should be allowed to govern, no matter what voters have to say.

Steve M. summarized this well: "If we were having an honest, well-informed discussion of modern American politics, we would acknowledge that this is what right-wingers believe: that governments to the left of a certain point simply should not be allowed to exist in America, regardless of any electoral results. And we would ask ourselves whether we still have a democracy if one party reserves the right, like guerrilla warlords, to destabilize any duly elected government that doesn't meet its criteria of acceptability."

Steve Benen 11:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share

A U-TURN ISN'T REALLY A CHANGE IN DIRECTION.... In early July, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) delivered the weekly Republican address in the midst of some discouraging economic news. It was delivered just one day after the worst monthly jobs report since October, and amid disappointing data on construction spending and manufacturing activity. Chambliss highlighted the Republican Party's top priority: deficit reduction. The far-right senator literally didn't mention unemployment or economic growth at all.

Yesterday's GOP weekly address came under similar circumstances, coming just two days after initial claims for unemployment insurance climbed to 500,000 -- the highest since November -- and amid new concerns of an economic slowdown. And what economic message do Republicans want to emphasize?

...Representative Charles Djou, Republican of Hawaii, took Democrats to task for ignoring the minority's pleas and proposals to reduce the federal deficit. Mr. Djou called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to consider the Republicans' plan to use unspent stimulus money to close the spending gap and to extend the Bush-era tax cuts.

"If we keep spending too much, borrowing too much, and taxing too much - if we keep doing the same things, we're going to get the same dismal results. It's time to change direction," he said.

Right, change direction back to the exact same failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

The entire GOP address was devoted, not to job creation -- voters' top priority -- but to deficit reduction. "No price tag has been too high for Washington, and now we're all paying the price. Altogether, we now owe more than $43,000 for each man, woman and child in the United States. That is a frightening number."

No, an unemployment rate pushing 10% is a frightening number.

I suppose I should know better, but Republicans' misguided priorities are simply mind-numbing. Worrying about deficit reduction right now -- indeed, prioritizing it above all else -- is nothing short of crazy. Republicans want to scrap economic recovery efforts, which is insane, and want to extend Bush-era tax policies, which failed miserably and helped create the massive deficit Djou claims to be worried about.

Indeed, the context would be amusing if it weren't so transparently pathetic -- in the official GOP weekly address, the entire message was about deficit reduction, followed by an appeal for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts that Republicans have no intention of paying for.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) added on Fox News, "The bills are being passed on to our kids tomorrow, and it's a calamity."

No, a jobs crisis and an economic slowdown right now would be a calamity. And if the deficit really was such a disaster, why is Gregg demanding Congress add $678 billion to said deficit with tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?

How on earth can anyone take these guys seriously?

Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

OF ALL THE THINGS TO WHINE ABOUT.... I'm embarrassed to admit, I didn't see this line of attack coming. It just seemed too ridiculous, even for Republicans, but I'm reminded why low expectations are rarely low enough with these folks.

For the second straight year, the first family has landed on this island of quaint seaside towns, second homes and working farms for a late-summer getaway.

But this year, more so than last, political opponents are trying to hang a question over the visit: Does President Obama deserve a vacation?

The Republican National Committee has taken to calling Obama "the Clark Griswold president," a mocking reference to the Chevy Chase character in National Lampoon's "Vacation" movies. With unemployment claims climbing again, the GOP was hoping its criticism would have a certain national resonance. And maybe it will.

I haven't the foggiest idea whether the public will actually hold a 10-day break against the president, but this even being a subject of discussion is bizarre.

George W. Bush presided over two recessions, two wars, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina -- but he still managed to take more time off than any president in modern history. While Bush was in the White House, he tended not to work too hard -- he was known for scheduling plenty of time for exercise during the day, and liked to knock off early -- but Bush also spent time away from the White House with a frequency unseen in generations, taking more and longer breaks than any of his 20th-century predecessors.

Before 2000, the president with the most vacation time in the modern era was Reagan. Bush not only beat Reagan's record, he did so with 17 months to spare. Spanning his two terms, Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, and 490 days at a ranch in Crawford. That's a total of 977 days -- about a third of his overall presidency.

And Republicans are going after Obama's down time? Seriously?

Consider the tale of the tape. Estimates vary slightly, but the Washington Post, citing data from CBS's Mark Knoller, the unofficial keeper of such things, said Obama has taken 48 days off since his inauguration. At this point in Bush's presidency, he'd taken 155 days off. (An AP estimate puts both numbers slightly higher.)

Note, Bush took all this time off during 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.

Does the GOP really want to start a discussion about who qualifies as "The Clark Griswold president"?

Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

NO WONDER HUGHES' DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.... It's been relatively heartening to see some leading Bush/Cheney aides step up and denounce the right's attacks on the Park51 proposal. Mark McKinnon, a former Bush strategist said his own party is "reinforcing al Qaeda's message." Michael Gerson, Bush's former chief speechwriter, has expressed similar sentiments.

If anyone should understand this, it's Karen Hughes, who, despite not having background in diplomacy or international affairs, was the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2005 to 2007. Her principal task: put America's best foot forward in the Middle East, making clear to the Muslim world that the United States treats all people with dignity and respect.

By all appearances, Hughes wasn't especially adept at her job. She tended to talk down to her foreign audiences, offered the kind of schlock that no one in the Middle East wanted, and lectured them about the inadequacies of their culture.

With that in mind, I suppose it shouldn't come as too big a surprise that Hughes is now arguing that the proposed Park51 building should be relocated -- not because the critics are correct, but because it'd be awfully nice of Feisal Abdul Rauf and his partners to accommodate those who can't tell the difference between mainstream, law-abiding Muslim Americans and radical terrorists who've tried to hijack Islam.

[I]t is so important that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his congregation make what I fully understand would be a very difficult choice: to locate their mosque elsewhere. Putting the mosque at a different site would demonstrate the uncommon courtesy sometimes required for us to get along in our free and diverse society.

I recognize that I am asking the imam and his congregation to show a respect that has not always been accorded to them. But what a powerful example that decision would be. Many people worry that this debate threatens to deepen resentments and divisions in America; by choosing a different course, Rauf could provide a path toward the peaceful relationships that he and his fellow Muslims strive to achieve. And this gesture of goodwill could lead us to a more thoughtful conversation to address some of the ugliness this controversy has engendered.

It's a curious argument. Most of Hughes' case is quite reasonable -- explaining that Muslim Americans have the same rights as everyone else, emphasizing why Rauf and terrorists have nothing in common -- right up until she gets to her recommendation. In effect, Hughes believes it's up to Park51's developers to simply give in to a heckler's veto, accommodating those who dislike Muslims by giving them what they want.

No wonder Hughes was so bad at foreign policy.

She added a provocative comparison, which was actually quite thought-provoking.

In 2005, when I was at the State Department, a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The debate around the world was heated and strikingly similar to this one. It pitted those supporting the right of a free press to publish anything, no matter how offensive, against those who took to the streets and threatened death to the cartoonists.

Many of those citing freedom as they advocate locating the mosque near Ground Zero were on the other side of the argument when it came to the cartoons. At that time, I joined with many Muslim friends in saying that while newspapers were free to publish the offensive materials, I hoped they would show respect and restraint and decide against it. That is an instructive model now.

It is, indeed. As I recall, U.S. conservatives strongly supported the publication of those cartoons -- some even re-published them on far-right blogs. What was paramount, they said, was First Amendment principles. Those who were offended, they argued at the time, would just have to get over it. Free people don't bend to the will an intolerant mob. Does the right still believe this or not?

Hughes concluded:

I suspect that the terrorists might celebrate its presence as a twisted victory over our society's freedoms.

That's hopelessly backwards. Terrorists, by all available evidence, desperately want the West to treat the Muslim mainstream as second-class citizens. They want the United States to discriminate. It helps terrorists when we blur the line between violent radicals and peaceful Americans.

Hughes's advice is deeply misguided, and best left ignored by everyone involved.

Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 21, 2010

THE CULTURE WAR IS DEAD; LONG LIVE THE CULTURE WAR.... Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) recently caused a stir in far-right circles when he suggested it might be time for a "truce" in the culture wars. Many conservatives assumed he was referring to a shift in emphasis away from the traditional hot-button, right-wing wedge issues -- and they were right; that's exactly what Daniels meant.

For a generation or two, the culture war was fairly specific, at least to the extent that everyone knew what we were fighting about. The "God, gays, and guns" label was largely effective for a reason.

What did culture warriors want? School prayer, a prohibition on flag burning, access to firearms, Ten Commandments displays all over the place, distrust of the United Nations, and extensive legal restrictions on abortion rights, gays, and drug use. Broadly speaking, the larger effort has been anti-feminist, anti-secular, anti-diversity, and pro-nationalism. The culture war was a right-wing initiative, but it was always far more authoritarian than "small government."

By 2008, this culture war seemed largely over -- the American mainstream, facing real problems, just didn't want to hear it anymore. Dems gave up on gun control; fights over school prayer seemed antiquated; no one was running around burning flags; fears of black helicopters became more amusing; the nation still didn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned; and gay Americans were part of the American mainstream. Conservatives wanted to change the culture, and they failed.

But in the Obama era, we're seeing less of an armistice and more of an evolution. Right-wing tribalism and jingoism haven't faded at all -- they remain the foundation for conservative activism -- but the focus, at least for now, is on a different slate of issues and a more radical legislative wish-list.

So, instead of the right demanding a bunch of new constitutional amendments, conservatives now want to start repealing old ones -- protecting the 2nd Amendment suddenly seems far less interesting than gutting the 14th. Complaints about "welfare queens" are out, while whining about "anchor babies" is in. Instead of getting worked up about erecting Ten Commandments displays, the right gets hysterical in the other direction about the construction of mosques. We hear less about secular humanists trying to destroy America, and more about immigrants.

No one asks about Obama's sex life or whether he smoked pot in college, but interest in his birth certificate generates excessive attention.

Adam Serwer had a smart take on this yesterday.

To the extent that this new culture war resembles the old one, it is in the reversal of roles -- it is the right that is now largely defined by an identity politics which perceives persecution, and possible extinction, for a culturally constructed usually white, conservative, "real American." This isn't just about Obama or his agenda, which borrows heavily from earlier conservative ideas, it's also a response to anxiety over economic insecurity and fear of ideological annihilation through demographic change. Hence the burgeoning Islamophobia and calls to repeal birthright citizenship. [...]

[I]f Obama's election was a referendum on what it means to be an American, then the right's response can be seen as a large scale attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the results.... Sadly, Obama didn't end the culture war, his election just ushered in a new one. To the right, Obama's election wasn't a call for truce, it was a deliberate escalation.

The wedge strategies haven't gone away, they're finding new fulcrums.

The culture war is dead; long live the culture war.

Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

Bookmark and Share

ABOUT THOSE JOB LOSSES.... It's pretty obvious that the U.S. market has been in a crisis situation for far too long. By any reasonable measure, 2010 is vastly better than 2009, but with the unemployment rate pushing 10%, and initial claims for unemployment insurance climbing to 500,000 last week, the scope of the problem is enormous.

But that's no excuse for partisan nonsense. House Ways and Means ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) issued a "report" yesterday, showing that -- get this -- the nation has lost jobs over the last year and a half. "While Democrats promised their 2009 stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different," stated a release from Camp's office. "To date, 2.6 million jobs, including 2.5 million private sector jobs, have been lost."

This is lazy, intellectually dishonest drivel. That it's coming from someone who may be the next chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is more than a little distressing.

Even a House Republican should be able to understand the reality here. When the Recovery Act passed, the economy was in freefall. When President Obama was sworn into office, the economy was losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month. By Camp's absurd reasoning, a recovery effort that didn't magically transform the entire economy, and instantly stop the job losses, necessarily constitutes failure. It's the kind of ridiculous argument one might hear from a partisan hack, desperate to score a cheap, baseless point, but leading members of Congress should know better.

job_losses_before_and_after_obama%27s_policies.png

Consider this chart Ezra Klein recently posted. The point isn't that the stimulus was perfect -- it should have been much bigger, not smaller as Camp would have hoped -- but rather, that the job losses predate the policies advanced by the Obama administration. (It's based on data economist Rob Shapiro put together, using Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.)

I realize guys like Camp have a petty little game to play. They either don't understand public policy very well, assume the public doesn't understand public policy very well, or perhaps a little of both. But independent analyses of the administration's recovery efforts show that they prevented a catastrophe. The administration should have done much more -- in other words, it should have moved much further away from what Republican proposed -- but the objective evidence is nevertheless clear.

Camp's entire approach to economics has been thoroughly discredited, and at a moment of crisis, he and his GOP colleagues got it very wrong. He has a reason to be embarrassed, not a reason to publish silly reports.

Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a setback for the Dove World Outreach Center, the radical Florida church that plans to commemorate Sept. 11 with a Koran-burning ceremony.

Turns out there's one thing they weren't counting on: a local Fire Department that's stingy with outdoor fire permits.

According to the Gainesville Sun, fire chief Gene Prince told the church "that under the city's fire prevention ordinance, an open burning of books is not allowed." Turns out town code 10-63, a "General prohibition on outdoor burning and open burning," specifically outlaws the burning of (section 6) "Newspaper" and (7) "Corrugated cardboard, container board, office paper."

Apparently, bound copies of Islam's holy text fall into those categories.

As of yesterday, Dove World didn't seem especially fazed by the setback. In an email to supporters, it announced: "City of Gainesville denies burn permit -- BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS." [all caps in the original]

Local officials have said the fundamentalist outfit could face fines if it moves forward with its fire party without a permit, which could be a problem -- the church is already facing significant debt, including an inability to pay its $140,000 mortgage.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* A Missouri law banning protests near any funerals, processions, or memorial services -- intended to discourage the disgusting Westboro Baptist Church -- was ruled unconstitutional this week by a federal judge.

* The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously this week that the state of Utah cannot legally erect 12-foot crosses on public land to honor troopers who died in the line of duty. While the state tried to argue that the Christian cross could be seen as a secular symbol -- seriously -- the three-judge panel disagreed, concluding that the displays reflected government preference for Christianity. (Of the three judges who heard the case, two were appointed by Reagan, the other by George W. Bush.)

* The Roman Catholic Church's international scandal involving the sexual abuse of children continues to spark new litigation. The latest suit involves seven church victims in California. (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

* The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer now believes the war in Iraq was a failure -- because the United States failed to turn Iraq into a Christian nation.

* If U.S. troops faced punishment for not attending a Christian concert at a U.S. Army post in Virginia, that's a serious problem. (thanks to J.B. for the tip)

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

NEVADA REPUBLICANS GET RESTLESS.... While some of the nuttier statewide candidates running this year are political novices, Nevada's Sharron Angle (R) actually has some experience in government. Indeed, she's following a more traditional trajectory -- she served in local office, then in the state legislature, and now wants to go to Washington.

But for all of the discussion about her extremist ideas and radical proposals, it's easy to forget that Sharron Angle's tenure in Nevada offices has long been considered something of a joke. On the local school board, Angle fought against the color of a school's athletic jerseys, because she thought black was demonic. In the state legislature, Angle was named -- by a conservative newspaper -- the worst lawmaker in Nevada (she won the "award" twice). Indeed, Angle was generally considered a nut by other Republicans in the state legislature, who often wanted nothing to do with her. In 2006, she lost a GOP congressional primary, and in 2008, she lost a state Senate GOP primary.

Manu Raju spoke to some folks in northern Nevada -- Angle's former constituents -- who didn't sound especially excited about their neighbor joining the U.S. Senate.

"I hate to copy from the ads, but Sharron Angle is too extreme," said 81-year-old Reno resident Walt Mackenzie, a retiree and a registered Republican. "There are a lot of Republicans who just can't put up with the ticket she's trying to sell."

State Sen. Bill Raggio has represented the area since 1972, and he defeated Angle just two years ago when she launched an unexpected primary campaign against him. Asked about his thoughts on his party's U.S. Senate nominee, Raggio said, "[A]t this point, I don't have any comment."

Swadeep Nigam, a former treasurer of the Clark County Republican Party, added, "A lot of moderate Republicans are having second thoughts about her candidacy. They will not vote for Harry Reid, and they will probably not vote for Sharron Angle."

Something to keep an eye on.

Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

THE NUMBERS MICHAEL STEELE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE.... When a major party campaign committee waits until late on a Friday night in mid-August to release its fundraising totals, it's a safe bet the numbers aren't very good.

In general, there's been relative parity between the parties' fundraising committees, at least in recent months. We learned this week, for example, that the Democrats' Senate campaign committee did slightly better than the Republicans' counterpart in the most recent filings. Among the House committees, the NRCC did a little better than the DCCC. In both cases, Democrats have a modest edge when it comes to cash on hand.

But the real story here is the disaster for Michael Steele's Republican National Committee. The party waited until late last night to release its tally for a very simple reason -- it was objectively embarrassing.

The Republican National Committee spent twice as much as it raised in July, leaving the committee with just over $5 million on hand with less than three months left before the 2010 midterm elections.

In a report filed with the Federal Election Commission this evening, the RNC showed $5.5 million raised and more than $11 million spent -- including $1.5 million in transfers to state party committees -- last month. The committee ended July with $5.3 million in the bank and $2.2 million in debt.

The Democratic National Committee raised and spent $11.6 million in July, including nearly $4 million in transfers to state parties. The DNC ended the period with $10.8 million. The DNC had $3.5 million in debt.

The dismal report comes less than a month after RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen accused Chairman Michael Steele of hiding $7 million in debts; the RNC filed amended reports in July detailing $3 million in previously unreported debts.

How humiliated was the RNC? While parties routinely issue press announcements, putting their best spin on their fundraising filings, last night, the RNC said literally nothing. The only reason the media found out about the filing was that the Democratic National Committee tracked it down and flagged it for reporters.

That's the good news for Dems. The bad news is this is just part of a more complicated landscape.

The RNC's humiliating problems are likely to undermine the party's get-out-the-vote efforts, but when it comes to finances, it's worth remembering that the other Republican committees -- NRCC, NSCC, and the Republican Governors Association -- are all doing pretty well. What's more, Republican candidates will get a boost from corporate allies intervening in the cycle in ways unseen in generations, while Karl Rove's various shady operations keep filling their coffers to finance deceptive attack ads for the fall.

And then, of course, there's the unpleasant fact that voters aren't happy with a struggling economy, and seem more inclined to punish the majority party anyway.

Steele's "leadership" no doubt brings a smile to the faces of leading Democratic officials, but Dems will need more than RNC embarrassments to salvage the cycle.

Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 20, 2010

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Once more, back to the table: "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Friday that Israel and the Palestinians would resume direct negotiations in Washington on Sept. 2, awakening hopes for the Middle East peace process but leaving many key questions unanswered. Mrs. Clinton said that she hoped an agreement could be reached within a year and that the negotiations would cover all the so-called 'final status' issues."

* Four new White House recess appointments: "Maria del Carmen Aponte to chief of mission for the Republic of El Salvador; Elisabeth Hagen to undersecretary for food safety at the Department of Agriculture; Winslow Sargeant to chief counsel of advocacy for the Small Business Administration; and Richard Sorian to assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services." None is considered especially controversial

* I'm glad to see the Chamber of Commerce back off its ridiculous blog post about the gender pay gap. The Chamber's COO David Chavern called his own blog's piece "simplistic and misguided," adding that it was built on "an argument from the 1960's."

* Charles Krauthammer should know that when he picks a fight with Greg Sargent, Greg is going to make him look bad.

* It's probably an inconvenient time to mention it, but the World Trade Center was a work of Islamic architecture.

* Some of the common perceptions about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's background aren't true.

* The significance of Viktor Bout being extradited to the U.S.

* When bad schemes go awry: "It seemed like a brilliant idea: provide a way for tea party-conscious consumers and tea party-sympathetic businesses to join forces and, well, support their local tea party. It ended in disaster, hurt feelings and more than a few accusations of flim-flammery."

* If the company had it to do over again, I suspect Target wouldn't be foolish enough to get involved in Minnesota's gubernatorial race.

* I do enjoy it when Adam Serwer uses video games to make broader political observations.

* It's a whole lot easier for students to pay their own way through college when tuition isn't excessively, crushingly expensive.

* Bill O'Reilly told Glenn Beck he'll give Beck his timeslot if more than 100,000 people show up for next week's right-wing rally in D.C. Bad idea: "It doesn't really matter how many people show up for Beck's rally. If 10,000 people turn out, he'll say there were a quarter of a million people in attendance. If 100,000 people do actually show up, he'll say there were nearly a billion people there. And Fox News will have his back, breathlessly inflating the turn out estimates, all evidence to the contrary be damned."

* And selective outrage about the "N-word" is never a good idea.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

DEPARTMENT OF POTS AND KETTLES.... Back in April, CNN Rick Sanchez had an unfortunate moment on the air in which he said Iceland is "too cold to have a volcano." He may have been kidding -- it's hard to tell -- but it obviously wasn't one of Sanchez's best moments.

Yesterday, deranged media personality Glenn Beck aired the months-old clip of Sanchez's mistake, using it as evidence to argue that Sanchez is "the dumbest man ever on television."

For the record, Sanchez generally isn't my cup of tea, and his volcano joke was pretty foolish, so I'm not inclined to offer much of a defense. But for Glenn Beck to describe anyone on television as dumb is just astounding. It's the equivalent of Sarah Palin accusing someone of being ignorant. Or Mark Kirk* accusing someone of exaggerating their personal background. Or David Vitter accusing someone of lacking character and integrity. Or Sharron Angle accusing someone of being a lunatic.

George Zornick highlights a few of Beck's greatest hits.

* Beck reveals that President Obama is an "oligarh"

* Beck also misspells "heroes" and "villains" live on-air.

* Beck plays Connect Four against himself, and cheats.

* Beck displayed a graphic demonstrating that Silas from "The Da Vinci Code" is a member of ACORN.

Beck said of Sanchez, "I honestly don't know how the man ties his own shoes." If I had a nickel for every time I've had the same thought about Beck, I could retire wealthy.

* fixed

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

HAVE I MENTIONED LATELY HOW 'SPECIAL' MIAMI IS?.... Having been born and raised in Miami, Fla., before escaping moving in the mid-90s, I have a special fondness for news stories that highlight South Florida's unique political culture.

For example, David M. Rivera is generating some headlines this week for some unusual elements to his background. Rivera is a Florida state representative, and the head of the Miami area's Republican Party, who's currently running for the open, competitive U.S. House seat in Florida's 25th district.

And what is it, exactly, that makes Rivera interesting? Nicole Allan offers a helpful summary of things we've learned about the candidate this week.

* In 1994, a woman named Jenia Dorticos filed for a domestic-violence restraining order against a man named David M. Rivera. Dorticos dropped the restraining order after a month and did not file criminal charges. Rep. Rivera, whose middle initial is M, claims he has never met Dorticos, who, when contacted, claims she has never met him. She filed the order against a different David M. Rivera, she says.

* So what's the problem, then? Dorticos' mother is a Cuban TV personality who is friendly with Rivera and has worked for his campaign. A Miami woman claims that ten years ago, Dorticos and Rivera attended a party at her house as a couple, along with Dorticos' mother (Dorticos and Rivera deny this claim).

* In his first campaign for the Florida House in 2002, Rivera faced a Republican opponent named Rainier Gonzalez. A few days before the primary, Gonzalez released a flier with a photo of Dorticos' petition for a restraining order along with side-by-side photos of Rivera and a woman with a black eye.

* Around the same time, Rivera was involved in a fender-bender on a Florida highway -- with a truck carrying Gonzalez's attack ads against him. Rivera claims that he wanted to retrieve his own fliers, which the truck was also carrying, because he didn't know the company that made them was also working for Gonzalez's campaign. An alternate account holds that Rivera forced the truck off the road in order to stall delivery of Gonzalez's ads past the 6 p.m. mailing deadline.

Ordinarily, candidates accused of domestic assault and running trucks off the highway to cover up his misdeeds have some trouble getting elected. But Miami is Miami, and it's likely all this week has done is improve Mr. Rivera's name recognition.

On a related note, if Rivera's name sounds familiar, he's the same guy who co-owned a home in Tallahassee with Marco Rubio, before they stopped making payments and the home went into foreclosure (a detail Rivera was less than honest about when first asked).

Allan notes, "Campaign scandals are weirder in Florida," a sentiment I heartily endorse. There's a reason Carl Hiaasen's novels are so funny -- they really don't have to stretch reality very much.

Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

HOW MUCH 'MORE AGGRESSIVE' CAN THEY BE?.... Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) chatted with ABC's Brian Ross this week, and the ethically-challenged exterminator turned politician turned reality-show star offered some advice to his party.

Despite the corruption and lobbying scandals that ensnared Republicans in Congress and triggered a Democratic resurgence over the past decade, Tom DeLay has only one piece of advice for GOP leaders as they attempt to retake the House in the upcoming midterm elections: Be more aggressive.

"The biggest change that I think they need [is] to be more aggressive at turning back the Obama agenda," the former House majority leader told ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross....

Now, I'd really like to hear about how this is possible. At this point, congressional Republicans oppose everything President Obama suggests, even when the president agrees with the GOP. DeLay's former colleagues have accused the president of being like Hitler, equated inconsequential flare ups with Watergate, questioned his citizenship status, heckled him during an address to a joint session, and have raised the specter of impeachment for no apparent reason.

If congressional Republicans were to be "more aggressive," I'm fairly certain the Secret Service would have to get involved.

DeLay added that he remains close friends with disgraced former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Perhaps the most striking moment of the 20-minute interview came when Ross asked DeLay if he felt there were any lessons to take from the Abramoff scandal and an era in which free-spending lobbyists lavished members of congress with meals, trips, and campaign donations.

"None at all," DeLay said, staring blankly.

He's quite a piece of work.

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

JOHNSON'S SUNSPOT GAFFE, ON VIDEO.... Ron Johnson (R), taking on Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in Wisconsin this year, has proven to be one of 2010's nuttiest candidates. It's why his campaign team has generally shielded him from speaking to the media, which might ask him to talk about his beliefs and policy positions, which in turn would cost him votes.

This week, however, Johnson sat down with editors and reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where he proceeded to explain why he rejects all scientific evidence related to global warming, which he described as "lunacy," and its supporters as "crazy." Asked about his own perceptions, Johnson said global warming is likely the result of "sunspot activity," which doesn't make any sense.

Today, Greg Sargent posts a video of the exchange, which, if anything, makes the bizarre candidate appear slightly worse. We learn, for example, that Johnson believes it's "a little absurd for anybody to think, Okay, this is the sweet spot in geologic time for climate. And it's such a good place, that we have spent trillions of dollars, and do great harm to our economy, on a fool's errand."

As Greg added, "I wonder if the countless scientists studying this issue ever asked themselves whether their scientific models allowed for the possibility that they were erroneously designating this moment geological time's climate change 'sweet spot.'"

In the larger context, Feingold clearly seems vulnerable this year, but I can't help but wonder what the race would have been like in Wisconsin if Republicans had nominated someone less transparently foolish. That isn't to say Johnson can't win -- polls suggest he's very competitive -- but this appears to be another example in which a ridiculous GOP nominee might save a Democrat's skin.

Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S NOT JUST SHOW RUNNERS.... Kevin Drum flags an interesting Wall Street Journal article about television writers who get even with their detractors in their scripts. For example, Entertainment Weekly TV critic Ken Tucker was frequently critical of USA Network's "Psych." After a number of negative reviews, "Ken Tucker" became the name of a psychotic killer.

"It was never 'Dr. Tucker' or just 'Ken.' It was always 'Did Ken Tucker eviscerate the body?'" USA original programming chief Jeff Wachtel said.

But it's worth noting that this method of revenge isn't limited to TV writers. The article reminded me of a story from a few years ago, in which Mike Crowley at The New Republic wrote a terrific-but-scathing cover story, blasting novelist Michael Crichton for his climate-change denials, partisanship, anti-intellectualism, and general hackery. (This was in 2006, a couple of years before Crichton died.)

Several months later, Crowley picked up a new Crichton novel and found a character named Mick Crowley. Here's what Crichton wrote (warning: this is awful, graphic content):

Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune....

It turned out Crowley's taste in love objects was well known in Washington, but [his lawyer] -- as was his custom -- tried the case vigorously in the press months before the trial, repeatedly characterizing Alex and the child's mother as "fantasizing feminist fundamentalists" who had made up the whole thing from "their sick, twisted imaginations." This, despite a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley's penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler's rectum.)

Crichton went on to describe the Mick Crowley character as a "weasel" and a "dickhead," and, later, "that political reporter who likes little boys."

The author wasn't subtle. Mike Crowley (real person) is a political reporter; Mick Crowley (Crichton's character) is a political reporter. Mike Crowley went to Yale; Mick Crowley went to Yale. Mike Crowley wrote a scathing criticism of Crichton, Mick Crowley is a child rapist in Crichton's book written just months after the TNR article was published.

All things being equal, Ken Tucker had it easy.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

CON AIR.... It was hard to imagine the Brent Furer story getting worse for Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) -- but it has.

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, scandal-plagued senator knew about this, and not only kept Furer on his staff, but tasked him with helping oversee women's issues for the Senate office. Making matters worse, Vitter, when asked about this, appears to have lied.

Furer had also been arrested on four other occasions -- three times for DUI, and once for cocaine possession. We're learning this week that Vitter used taxpayer dollars to send Furer to Louisiana, apparently so he could defend himself against some of his criminal charges.

Democrats think they have David Vitter dead to rights. Travel records, they say, indicate that Vitter's one-time aide Brent Furer twice used taxpayer money to travel to Louisiana to defend himself in court on drunk driving charges. Those same records suggest that Furer seldom traveled to Louisiana on congressional business. [...]

That contradicts Vitter's official response to the suggestion that Furer attended court dates on the taxpayer dime. In a statement to the Advocate in Baton Rouge, Vitter spokesman Joel DiGrado, said Vitter was unaware of the drunk driving charges at the time, and added "It is standard for our Washington legislative staff to visit Louisiana periodically for meetings."

Furer, it turns out, almost never went to Louisiana on official business in the five years he worked for Vitter -- and half the time he did, it just happened to coincide with one of his court dates.

This is especially interesting given that Vitter went after his Democratic opponent, Rep. Charlie Melancon, for using his congressional account to lease an SUV. By comparison, Vitter seems to have used our money to pay for a violent criminal to travel to Louisiana to make court dates.

I realize Louisiana is pretty conservative, and it's looking like a Republican year. But it's hard not to wonder just how much tolerance voters will have in a situation like this. Initially, it looked like Vitter betraying his family by hiring prostitutes -- after having run on a "family-values" platform -- would be his most serious controversy. But in recent months, Vitter's hooker problem has become just a piece in a large, ugly puzzle.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

I GUESS SHE'S NOT A RAIDERS FAN.... It's easy to forget, but before Sharron Angle (R) said a lot of crazy things as a U.S. Senate candidate, she said a lot of crazy things at a local level. In 1992, for example, Angle ran for a county school board.

One of her big issues at the time? Angle opposed a local high school using black athletic jerseys, which she considered un-Christian and wicked. She won, and the jerseys changed to a different color. Asked about this the other day, Angle didn't quite deny it, but said it wasn't relevant to the Senate race.

Jon Chait's reaction was very much in line with my own.

One of the reasons I've been fascinated with Sharron Angle's Senate campaign is that she is not merely a candidate with extremely radical views, like Rand Paul, she inhabits an ideological grey area where radicalism starts to become indistinguishable with actual mental illness. [...]

I can see why conservatives would want to look the other way from Angle's looniness. Knocking off Harry Reid is a delicious opportunity for the GOP, and Angle would be a reliable party vote against President Obama's agenda. But isn't there some risk in identifying your party with such an obviously crazy person?

That need not be a rhetorical question. Republican hatred for Harry Reid is practically limitless, but exactly how many GOP leaders look at Sharron Angle and conclude that the nation will be well served by her service in the United States Senate? For that matter, how many of them believe Republicans' reputation will be improved by supporting someone who, by all appearances, is stark raving mad?

Ideally, one imagines responsible Republicans coming forward to announce their opposition to such extremism, much the same way then-Sen. John Warner (R) of Virginia said in 1994 that he didn't want to see Oliver North join the Senate.

Any chance we'll see anything similar this year? (Don't worry, that is a rhetorical question.)

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* Bill Clinton to the rescue: "The former president has become one of the party's best salesmen. He has long been in demand to raise money for Democratic candidates, but now there is a more pressing need: raising the spirits of Democratic voters, dispensing wisdom as he works to put the party's political challenges into a broader context. A decade after he was banished from the campaign trail -- seen at the time as a liability to Vice President Al Gore's presidential ambitions -- Mr. Clinton is now the most sought-after Democrat, logging 29 stops so far this year with more to come in the fall. "

* A Kentucky cable news channel, CN2, polled the state's closely watched U.S. Senate race, and found the two challengers effectively tied. State Attorney General Jack Conway (D) had 41.7% support, while right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) had 41.2%.

* In a demonstration of just how far some Blue Dogs are willing to go, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) of Indiana has a new ad blasting cap-and-trade, calling it Nancy Pelosi's "energy tax." Donnelly is, in other words, incorporating specific Republican talking points into his re-election message.

* After a very aggressive radio ad from his primary challenger this week, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is threatening to sue any in-state radio stations that agree to air the spot. Among the problems: Chet Traylor alleges in the ad that Vitter assaulted a former female opponent.

* Rep. Artur Davis, after his surprisingly awful showing in Alabama's Democratic gubernatorial primary, is lashing out at Ron Sparks, who beat him easily: "Davis' words drip with disdain and lingering bitterness, providing a pathetic and potentially final note to a political career that was once noted for its fast ascendance and seemingly limitless potential."

* The latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Bill Brady (R) leading incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn (D) in this year's gubernatorial race, 39% to 30%. Quinn's support would likely be higher, but a Green Party candidate is currently generating 11% support.

* In Florida, state CFO Alex Sink, the Dems' gubernatorial nominee, tapped former gubernatorial candidate Rod Smith yesterday as her running mate.

* And for all the talk about various potential GOP kingmakers, right-wing Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) appears to have the strongest record in helping Republicans win primaries. (thanks to R.P. for the tip)

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

A PARTY IN NEED OF A NEW START.... David Broder's column yesterday covered familiar ground -- the Washington Post columnist is still disappointed with both parties -- but there was one point in particular that stood out. (thanks to N.B. for the tip)

The Post reported earlier this week that, as Senate Republicans delay consideration of a new strategic arms treaty with Russia, the previous framework has lapsed. As a result, "for the first time in 15 years, U.S. officials have lost their ability to inspect Russian long-range nuclear bases." Broder notes the political context.

The inspections were guaranteed by the old START agreement, which expired in December. The successor treaty was negotiated in April, but the Senate has not taken it up because several Republican senators have raised questions about its possible effect on plans to modernize the U.S. nuclear fleet.

Republican Richard Lugar, probably the Senate's leading authority on nuclear disarmament, told reporter Mary Beth Sheridan that the delay "is very serious and impacts our national security."

But Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the deputy Republican leader and one of the main voices challenging the urgency of action, told Sheridan he had assumed the inspections were continuing. What a price to pay for ignorance.

Indeed, Republicans holding up the new nuclear treaty have largely ignored the lapsed nuclear checks. Kyl, who's helped lead the way in obstructing progress, was asked about the inspection cutoff. "I thought we were just going to continue doing business as usual" as the replacement treaty was debated, he said.

It's a reminder that GOP obstructionism is not only abusive of institutional and national interests, it's also often based on Republican ignorance about issues of global importance.

While we're on the subject, it's also worth noting that Kyl and his cohorts are blocking the pending New START measure, despite their support for a similar measure when Bush was president.

"This treaty is a masterstroke.... It is shorn of the tortured bench marks, sub-limits, arcane definitions and monitoring provisions that weighed down past arms control treaties," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "It assumes a degree of trust between nations that are no longer on the precipice of war."

Those were words from Kyl's floor speech on March 6, 2003, in support of ratification of the Moscow Treaty, signed nine months earlier by President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The resolution for ratification passed that day without opposition, 95 to 0 with five senators absent, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), today's minority leader. Twenty-four Republicans who voted for that treaty seven years ago are in the Senate today, but not one, save possibly Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), has indicated he or she will vote for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), negotiated by President Obama's team. New START has sub-limits, definitions and monitoring provisions.

In fact, Kyl and many of the 23 other senators are critical of elements of New START that they readily accepted or ignored in the agreement they embraced seven years ago.

By all appearances, the problem is that far too many Republicans aren't just unaware of substantive details, they also govern through knee-jerk instincts -- if Obama negotiated a strong nuclear arms treaty, it must be bad, even if it's good, because Obama supports it.

Nuclear proliferation is simply too important for such petty, childish nonsense.

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

THE GANG THAT ONCE CONSIDERED ITSELF THE GROWN-UP PARTY.... In an op-ed this week, I made the case that Republicans are pursuing a strategy this year that breaks with a traditional model. After a couple of humiliating election cycles, the GOP could have moved away from the far-right and positioned itself as a more mainstream party, but instead, it moved even further to the right. If it's rewarded, the strategy will only encourage more political radicalism.

The New York Times editorial board raises a related point this morning: Republicans sure have nominated a bunch of weirdos.

For months, it has been clear that Republican Congressional candidates would benefit from independent voters' dissatisfaction with President Obama. With the Republican field now largely in place, all voters might want to take a close look at who those candidates are.

The party has nominated so many at the far right of the spectrum, as well as some other unusual choices -- Linda McMahon, the candidate for the United States Senate in Connecticut made millions running the sex-and-violence spectacle known as World Wrestling Entertainment -- that the Republican brand is barely recognizable.

That point about the GOP "brand" is especially interesting. For years, Republicans really had presented themselves to voters as responsible, dependable grown-ups, unlikely to do anything radical. That "brand" has deteriorated to the point of comedy.

The editorial picked a handful of key statewide candidates -- the piece obviously could have been much longer -- but they're real doozies. The first is Ken Buck, the GOP's Senate candidate in Colorado, who wants to eliminate several cabinet agencies, repeal the 17th Amendment, and ignore church-state separation. The Times then notes Rand Paul and Sharron Angle, whose work you're probably familiar with.

The editorial also highlights Mike Lee, the GOP's Senate candidate in Utah, who has problems with the 14th and 17th Amendments, and wants to lower the liability costs for oil companies that cause extensive environmental damage.

Space concerns no doubt prevented the editorial from including more names, but if we're talking about Republicans running statewide who are very far to the right, it's only fair to also note Colorado's Dan Maes, Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, Florida's Marco Rubio, and Minnesota's Tom Emmer.

The NYT's editorial concluded, "These new Republican candidates are out of touch with mainstream American values of tolerance and pretty much everything else. They need to be challenged head-on." That makes sense, of course, but I also think it matters who's doing the challenging. In 2008, more than a few Republicans broke ranks and threw their support to Barack Obama. In 2010, are there still GOP leaders willing to stand up and say their party has fallen off the rails?

Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

LA TIMES WRITER FORGETS FILIBUSTERS EXIST.... Stopping by the L.A. Times' website this morning, I noticed a bizarre headline: "Obama now blames poor job numbers on congressional inaction. Wait! His party runs Congress." The emphasis was in the original.

This seemed pretty dumb on its face, so, naturally, I clicked on the link. It turned out to be another Andrew Malcolm tirade, with inane policy insights. Did you know, for example, that "employers are holding back on hiring" because of "the certainty of new taxes after Nov. 2"? Probably not, since no one who knows what they're talking about would present such nonsense as fact, especially when writing for a major newspaper.

But then we get to the heart of the matter.

According to the president, he's been "adamant" with Congress for months now about a new jobs bill to help small businesses. Obama says this really good bill is stalled in the Senate, where so much administration legislation has been crammed through so effectively by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid's been so good at it, in fact, that he's now running for his political life in a reelection campaign back in Nevada where Obama's legislation is not so popular.

Reid's up against a conservative Republican. So, That means that Harry Reid must be a Democrat, just like Obama, and just like 59% of the Senate's votes.

The very same party that has controlled both houses of Congress since the 2006 election and really controlled them both since the 2008 hopey-changey balloting.

So, facing the growing grim possibility of a GOP surge on Nov. 2, is this maybe the start of buddy-bickering within the Democratic huddle? Vulnerable people pointing the proverbial political finger of blame at someone else? That's ridiculous, of course.

I just have the hardest time understanding why the L.A. Times would publish such lazy drivel. Obama and Reid want a bill to boost small business incentives; Republicans don't. This might be "the start of buddy-bickering within the Democratic huddle"? Given that Dems agree on the policy, what does that even mean?

And if the Democratic majority wants to pass a bill, and Republicans refuse to allow an up-or-down vote, why is it "ridiculous" to blame the GOP for its obstructionism?

The point of the childish item seems to be that Democrats control Congress, so they should be able to pass what they want. That might be true, if the Senate operated by majority rule, as it used to before modern abuses became commonplace. But Malcolm's little rant acts as if filibusters don't even exist.

To be sure, Malcolm is a partisan activist. I get it. His work is intended to reflect Republican press releases, so items like these serve their intended purpose.

But shouldn't the L.A. Times, as a major news outlet, feel some qualms about paying to publish deliberately misleading nonsense?

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

FIGHTING WITH PUBLIC BACKING ON TAXES.... If it seems as if Democratic policymakers engage in debates from a defensive crouch, it's generally because they assume the public is skeptical about their position. Republicans excel in messaging and demagoguery, so Dems tend to fear voter backlashes, regardless of merit.

But when polls show the public strongly endorsing a Democratic idea, it's generally a bit of a hint that they have nothing to be afraid of.

On the issue of expiring Bush-era tax rates, for example, Republicans seem awfully confident, but its Dems who have the popular proposal.

On taxes, three in ten believe that the Bush-era tax cuts should be continued for all Americans, according to the new poll released Friday. Just over 50 percent say those tax cuts should be continued only for families who make less than $250,000 a year, as Obama has proposed. Nearly 1 in 5 meanwhile say the tax cuts should expire for all Americans.

The political winds tend to be blowing in the other direction, but this is pretty good news for Dems -- on one of the GOP's biggest issues, just 31% of the country thinks they're right. In fact, looking through the internals, voters prefer the Democratic plan in every demographic -- gender, race, age, income, and region. The only groups who prefer the GOP approach are self-identified Republicans and self-identified conservatives.

In other words, Dems can and should feel like they have the upper hand here. They're prepared to fight for lower rates for the middle- and lower-classes, while the GOP goes to bat for millionaires and billionaires.

For all the Republican bravado, this seems like a far stronger issue for Democrats. It's not a bad election-year fight to have.

On the other hand, health care continues to be a problem, with 56% disapproving of the policy. Opposition to the Affordable Care Act has fallen since it passed in March, but only slightly. To its credit, the CNN poll dug a little deeper, though, and found that opposition is not necessarily a matter of right vs. left -- 41% disapprove of the policy because it's "too liberal," 40% support the new law, and 13% oppose it because it's "not liberal enough."

So, when we hear that a "majority" oppose the ACA, keep in mind that a sizable chunk of opponents are actually liberals -- not the kind of folks who'll be inclined to vote Republican in November.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

SOMEONE BUY KRAUTHAMMER A STREET MAP.... Last week, Charles Krauthammer wrote a passionate column, condemning the idea of constructing a mosque at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. It would have been a far more persuasive piece, if anyone had actually proposed constructing a mosque at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

Krauthammer tries again today, initially blaming the "liberal intelligentsia" for, among other things, having "a singular difficulty dealing with analogies."

The Atlantic's Michael Kinsley was typical in arguing that the only possible grounds for opposing the Ground Zero mosque are bigotry or demagoguery. Well then, what about Pope John Paul II's ordering the closing of the Carmelite convent just outside Auschwitz?

Perhaps us lefties are having "difficulty dealing with analogies" because the right keeps offering foolish ones -- Auschwitz and a shut-down Burlington Coat Factory store have very little in common.

At least Richard Cohen of The Post tries to grapple with the issue of sanctity and sensitivity. The results, however, are not pretty. He concedes that putting up a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor would be offensive but then dismisses the analogy to Ground Zero because 9/11 was merely "a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai."

Obtuseness of this magnitude can only be deliberate. These weren't crazies. They were methodical, focused, steel-nerved operatives.

Nor were they freelance rogues. They were the leading, and most successful, edge of a worldwide movement of radical Islamists with cells in every continent, with worldwide financial and theological support, with a massive media and propaganda arm, and with an archipelago of local sympathizers, as in northwestern Pakistan, who protect and guard them.

Yes, and just as soon as Krauthammer can get around to explaining why we should equate the 9/11 terrorists with Faisal Abdul Rauf -- they are, after all, complete opposites -- I'll be sure to take the argument seriously.

Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers -- according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims, i.e., more than 80 million souls -- it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions. It is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert.

Putting aside whether every airport in the West should be an armed camp, I'm not at all sure about the reliability of the numbers Krauthammer cites. But if, for the sake of argument, we concede the accuracy of the dubious claim, it's still not an argument. Krauthammer wants us to believe that 7% of world-wide Muslims are violent extremists. But is there any reason to believe those involved with the Park51 project are among that 7%? Is there anything in the American tradition that suggests we discriminate against our own, law-abiding citizens based on the beliefs and actions of radicals who claim to be part of their faith tradition?

Ground Zero is the site of the most lethal attack of that worldwide movement, which consists entirely of Muslims, acts in the name of Islam and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world. These are regrettable facts, but facts they are. And that is why putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.

That might make sense if Park51 was "a monument to Islam" (instead of a community center with a swimming pool and restaurant), and if the plan called for constructing the building "in this place," as opposed to a couple of blocks away at a closed clothing store.

[R]epresentatives of contemporary Islam -- the overwhelming majority of whose adherents are equally innocent of the infamy committed on 9/11 in their name -- should exercise comparable respect for what even Obama calls hallowed ground and take up the governor's offer.

The Burlington Coat Factory store is not hallowed ground, and the Gov. Paterson's offer is pretty obviously unconstitutional.

Other than all of this, though, Krauthammer's piece is a great column.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share

A THREAT THAT'S FAR FROM IMMINENT.... By one widely-read account, Israel is "getting ready" to bomb Iran. Earlier this week, the Bush/Cheney ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, argued that Israel has just "eight days" to launch a strike against Iran's nuclear facility.

The Obama administration has explained that the threat isn't nearly that imminent.

The Obama administration, citing evidence of continued troubles inside Iran's nuclear program, has persuaded Israel that it would take roughly a year -- and perhaps longer -- for Iran to complete what one senior official called a "dash" for a nuclear weapon, according to American officials.

Administration officials said they believe the assessment has dimmed the prospect that Israel would pre-emptively strike against the country's nuclear facilities within the next year, as Israeli officials have suggested in thinly veiled threats.

While Israel reportedly argued that Iran's program could be up and running within months, the U.S. believes it's at least a year away -- and that a system is in place to detect an acceleration, which would leave time for military strikes if necessary.

So, are Israeli officials inclined to believe the Obama administration's assessment? Apparently, yes. The NYT noted that Israeli officials "said their assessments were coming into line with the American view," and both countries have come to believe Iranian success on nuclear development "is unlikely anytime soon."

Indeed, there's some evidence that sanctions are having the desired effect.

To block Iran's nuclear ambitions, the United States and the European Union recently imposed harsh economic sanctions aimed at choking off Iran's energy supplies and prohibiting foreign banks from doing business with financial institutions inside the country.

Several officials said they believed the mounting cost of the economic sanctions, especially those affecting Iran's ability to import gasoline and develop its oil fields, has created fissures among Iran's political elite and forced a debate about the costs of developing nuclear weapons.

That's the good news. The bad news is all of this does not necessarily preclude a military offensive: "Even as American and Israeli officials agree that the date that Iran is likely to have a nuclear weapon has been pushed into the future, that does not mean that Israel has abandoned the idea of a possible military strike."

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 19, 2010

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Pakistan: "As Pakistan grapples with a staggering humanitarian disaster that has left millions of people homeless and many more cut off without food or clean water, American officials both here and abroad pledged increased support to the nation on Thursday, hoping to bolster a relationship that is widely viewed as critical to stability in the region. Before heading to the United Nations to appeal for more aid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the creation of a special fund to alleviate the suffering in Pakistan, urging American families to contribute to it directly."

* Let's try not to forget the Gulf, OK? "New research confirms the existence of a huge plume of dispersed oil deep in the Gulf of Mexico and suggests that it has not broken down rapidly, raising the possibility that it might pose a threat to wildlife for months or even years."

* According to the Congressional Budget Office, this year's deficit will be slightly smaller than last year's. (New Democratic talking point: "GOP made the deficit bigger, we're making it smaller!")

* Mike Allen's report on the administration and Social Security caused a fair amount of consternation today, but there's ample reason for skepticism.

* With 40% of Americans in their 20s moving back into their parents' house at least once, the causes seem to be economic, not social/cultural.

* I suspect we'll be hearing more anecdotes like these: "An influential Muslim GOP donor is at the end of her tether, and tells TPM she may eventually have to leave the Republican party over its opposition to the Cordoba House project and other anti-Muslim positions. 'I don't know if I'll be a Republican a year from now,' says Seeme Hasan, who chairs the Hasan Family Foundation in Colorado, and close ties to the Republican party leadership."

* When a hysterical right-wing candidate get worked up about "Coexist" bumper stickers, it's evidence of a man with too much time on his hands.

* Oh good, Dr. Laura has found a friend after her racist on-air tirade.

* Just so we're clear, 9/11 is not a place.

* Quote of the Day from Jon Stewart: "I really think, if anything, the Republicans should be paying Fox News millions and millions of dollars -- not the other way around."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD DO SOMETHING.... It's Thursday, which means the new weekly numbers are released showing initial claims for unemployment insurance. Economists expected the number to drop last week. They didn't -- the total rose to 500,000, the highest since November. After some more encouraging reports earlier in the summer, new jobless claims have gone up every week for the past month.

To put this in perspective, economists would look for the number to drop 400,000 to signal a healthier job market that can bring the unemployment rate down. Lately, we've been moving in the wrong direction. The Washington Post's Neil Irwin said this morning's report "feels more double dip-ish than tepid growth-ish."

It coincided with news from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia' that showed "manufacturing in the mid-Atlantic states shrank this month. The index fell to minus 7.7 points in August -- its lowest level since July 2009 -- from last month's 5.1 points."

With that in mind, President Obama spoke briefly this afternoon, talking up a bill to boost small business incentives, and urging Republicans that have refused to let the Senate vote on the legislation to give it consideration when lawmakers return from their recess.

"There will be plenty of time between now and November to play politics," he said. "But the small business owners I met with this week, the ones that I've met with across the country this year, they don't have time for political games. They're not interested in what's best for a political party. They're interested in what's best for the country. When Congress reconvenes, this jobs bill will be the first business out of the gate. And the Senate Republican leadership needs to stop its efforts to block it."

I get the point of remarks like these. This morning's report was an unexpected blow, and for those fearing another economic downturn, it was yet another reason to feel less confident about where we're headed. The president knows, of course, that the Senate can't vote on the small-business bill during a recess, but he made the remarks anyway, as if to say, "Don't worry, we're working on it."

But as much I often appreciate Obama's remarks for their morale-boosting qualities, this wasn't making me feel better. By any reasonable measure, the bill with small-business incentives is a good proposal, which deserves to pass. Republican opposition to it really is ridiculous. But it's not the kind of sweeping measure that's going to turn around a growing jobs crisis. It's an arrow in a quiver -- and a good one -- but we're going to need a lot more.

So, is there any good news? Reader T.K. alerted me to this report in USA Today on many domestic corporations "sharply increasing their capital spending this year," fueling hopes that "business investment could help pick up the slack and eventually spark job growth that lifts the economy from its doldrums."

Here's hoping.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

LET'S DEFINE 'FAITH'.... Andrew Malcolm -- who, like so many of his Bush White House colleagues, now works in the media -- shared some thoughts today on President Obama and public confusion about his religious beliefs.

Aides have since described Obama's religious faith as "Christian," although only 34% of poll respondents knew that, down from 48% just 60 days into his presidency.

Since the Wright break, Obama has been unaffiliated with any specific faith, like only three previous presidents in U.S. history -- Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Johnson and his predecessor, Abraham Lincoln.

Now, Malcolm was a Bush flack*, and his partisan spin on current events is often as frustrating as it is bizarre. But since the public cites the media as the source of the confusion over the president's faith, it's worth taking a moment to emphasize just how remarkably misleading Malcolm's piece really is.

The first problem is just the writer playing a little game. "Aides" describe Obama as a Christian? Perhaps, but this makes it seem as if there's a suspect claim here. Obama describes himself as a Christian. What "aides" say is irrelevant.

The more serious issue is Malcolm claiming that "Obama has been unaffiliated with any specific faith." That's utter nonsense. Obama has been "affiliated" with Christianity throughout his adult life -- because he's a Christian, and Christianity is a specific faith.

Maybe there's some astounding theological ignorance here, but Obama has been "unaffiliated with any specific" congregation since leaving Chicago's Trinity United Church. But a congregation and a faith aren't the same thing. Not even close.

Indeed, if failing to join a specific congregation necessarily puts a president in the "unaffiliated with any specific faith" camp, the list of president grows well beyond Jefferson, Johnson, and Lincoln. It would also include Reagan, who rarely bothered with church services, and George W. Bush, who never became a formal member of a congregation during his eight years in Washington.

I'm generally not inclined to blame the media for the public's confusion about Obama's beliefs, but reporting as bad as Malcolm's certainly contributes to the larger problem.

* Clarification: Malcolm emails to argue that he never worked as a press flack for President Bush. He's correct -- Malcolm worked as a press flack of President Bush's wife during her tenure as First Lady. When I referred to him as part of the "Bush White House," I did not literally mean he worked in the West Wing, but rather, was part of the larger Bush team.

As for the errors of fact and judgment as described in my post, Malcolm altered one of the errors - his piece now reads, "Obama has been unaffiliated with any specific congregation, like only three previous presidents in U.S. history -- Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Johnson and his predecessor, Abraham Lincoln.' The observation is still factually wrong, since multiple other presidents have been unaffiliated with specific congregations during their presidencies.

Update: Malcolm alerted readers to change with a 6 p.m. update. The still-mistaken sentence remains unchanged.

Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

WORD CHOICE MATTERS.... Under the circumstances, how one chooses to label the Park51 project matters in shaping public attitudes. With that in mind, the AP is clearly doing the right thing, making up for some misleading headlines.

The Associated Press, one of world's most powerful news organizations, issued a memo today advising staff to avoid the phrase "Ground Zero mosque."

The Upshot reported Tuesday that the AP started using the phrase "Ground Zero mosque" in some headlines in late May. The New York Times, for one, has consciously avoided that phrasing.

The AP began using the phrase as the controversy over the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque in Lower Manhattan started bubbling up to the national level.... Now the news organization is taking steps to make sure that no longer occurs.

This would have been even more helpful, say, a few weeks ago, before so many Americans became enraged by a proposal that doesn't exist, but I suppose it's better late than never.

I do sympathize with headline writers. "Muslim community center in shut-down clothing store" isn't exactly punchy. Hell, the accurate description immediately invalidates the basis for the entire controversy, making the argument rather pointless.

But as long as the matter remains a subject of intense national scrutiny, and developers are calling the proposed building "Park51," that should make it easier for editors looking for something easy to call it.

Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

THE WRONG ENEMY.... It's still incredible to me that the right hopes to make Faisal Abdul Rauf a villain. Jeffrey Goldberg shares this anecdote today.

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

There are those who would argue that these represent mere words, chosen carefully to appease a potentially suspicious audience. I would argue something different: That any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, "I am a Jew," is placing his life in danger.

Remember, Islamists hate the people they consider apostates even more than they hate Christians and Jews. In other words, the man many commentators on the right assert is a terrorist-sympathizer placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism.

In context, Rauf told attendees, "We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma' Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl."

This is, of course, also the same imam who partnered with the Bush/Cheney State Department on international diplomacy, the Bush/Cheney Justice Department on counter-terrorism, and has devoted his career to combating extremism.

He's also the imam Fox News personalities have labeled a "radical," and who Sean Hannity has suggested might need to be expelled from the United States.

I know August has become a time for nonsense, but the right-wing campaign against this Muslim American is really pushing the envelope.

Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

ROY BLUNT ABANDONS SHAME, TRIES TO EXPLOIT 9/11 FOR PARTISAN GAIN.... Missouri is home to a competitive Senate race this year, so it stands to reason that the frontrunner, ethically-challenged Rep. Roy Blunt (R), is going to go all out in attacking Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D).

But there are at least some lines of decency that candidates shouldn't cross if they expect voters to respect their character. The Blunt campaign seems to have forgotten this.

Blunt's Republican team posted a web video yesterday, featuring an image of Ground Zero shortly after the 9/11 attacks nine years ago -- with visible smoke still rising the devastation. It's still a painful image, and it's precisely the kind of visual that have no place in some politician's attack ad.

Roy Blunt, however, added an audio track to the image, playing his opponent's recent answer to a question about Park51 over the visual. "Look, I'm not going to try to tell folks in New York what to do -- and I don't want them trying tell us in Missouri what to do -- so in the end, it's going to have to be their decision," Carnahan is heard saying. "But I think this is a time where we ought to be trying to get people of all faiths to come together, not divide them."

And that's it. It's the whole clip -- nothing more than the 9/11 photo shown over Carnahan's response. Why Blunt considers her remarks so scandalous is a mystery -- it's a local decision, and now's a good time to try to bring people together -- but I have trouble relating to right-wing thinking anyway.

Regardless, the campaign video is, quite literally, disgusting.

The Carnahan campaign has called on Blunt to apologize, not to his opponent, but "to the families of the 9/11 victims, whose tragedy he exploited for his own personal political benefit."

Blunt's campaign pulled the video this morning, saying it "didn't reflect the right tone." But as Greg Sargent noted, "Interestingly, even though the Blunt campaign has yanked the video showing the 9/11 wreckage, the audio of Carnahan talking about Cordoba House is still front and center on Blunt's Web site."

And in case you were curious, Blunt was "one of 155 Republicans to vote [last month] against a benefits bill for emergency workers who responded to the 9/11 attacks."

It's tempting a story like this will do real damage to Blunt's campaign -- Missouri may be a "red" state, but it still tends to take integrity and decency seriously -- but time will tell.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT ISN'T NECESSARILY DUE.... The U.S. presence in Iraq is obviously not over, but the developments that began last night are still very important. While 50,000 American troops remain in the country, the last American combat soldiers have begun heading home -- two weeks early -- and Operation Iraqi Freedom has come to a formal end.

It's a significant milestone, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants to congratulate the troops. No, wait, that's not it. McCain wants to applaud President Obama's work in making these developments a reality. No, hold on, that's not right, either.

Now I remember: McCain wants Bush to get credit.

President George W. Bush deserves "some credit" for the last combat units leaving Iraq on Wednesday night, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

McCain, one of the foremost supporters of the war effort there, posted a late-night message on his Twitter account, which is followed by 1.7 million people:

"Last American combat troops leave Iraq. I think President George W. Bush deserves some credit for victory."

Putting aside the premature nature of declaring "victory," I can't help but find it fascinating to see how we're supposed to perceive Bush's role in current events. If Democrats at any level suggest the failed former president bears some responsibility for the economy or the budget mess, for example, the response from the right is fierce: "Stop blaming Bush! He's gone! Take some responsibility!"

But if something positive happens, there's John McCain, insisting Bush get "some credit."

Tell you what, John. I'll give Bush "some credit" for developments in Iraq just as soon as you give him "some blame" for the economy, the deficit, and for launching this misguided conflict in the first place.

Also note that McCain's familiarity with the details may be a little off. The Status of Forces Agreement signed in 2008 reflected the approach presented by Barack Obama. While McCain offered a very different vision, Obama's policy was embraced by Iraqi leaders, Bush's Defense Secretary, and U.S. officials negotiating the SOFA terms.

What's more, while that agreement scheduled the end of U.S. troops' presence in Iraq for the end of the 2011, the end of the combat mission -- the early end of Operation Iraqi Freedom -- was on the Obama timetable, not Bush's.

Still waiting for McCain's tweet extending "some credit" to this president, not the last one.

Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S NOT JUST THE PARENT COMPANY.... News Corp's $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association has generated a fair amount of attention, not on Fox News, which refuses to report on the story, but at most major outlets. There is a defense that Fox News can point to, however: News Corp is the corporate parent, so it's not the network's fault.

Michael Wolff reports today, however, that this unpersuasive argument isn't true. Rupert Murdoch isn't usually inclined to give $1 million to politicians, and according to Wolff, the massive contribution came not from Murdoch but from Roger Ailes -- the Republican campaign veteran who runs Fox News.

The company is claiming the donation has nothing to do with its news side, going so far as to audaciously say, "There is a strict wall between business and editorial." The "corporate side" made the donation, News Corp.'s hapless spokesman insists. But the central advocate for giving the dough has been none other than Fox Chief Roger Ailes. In the past, Ailes has been stymied or neutralized in his quest to have the company put its corporate money where its mouth is, because the No. 2 in the company until last summer, Peter Chernin, was a Democrat.

With Chernin gone, and with Fox News outperforming most other parts of the company, Ailes is the central voice... It really isn't possible that Murdoch is giving a million bucks and getting nothing for it.

Indeed, it's equally implausible that Murdoch's operation would care about gubernatorial races enough to give the Republican Governors Association a contribution with no modern precedent. The House and Senate, maybe. But governors? Republicans care about gubernatorial races, in large part because of post-Census redistricting, but News Corp's interest doesn't really make sense.

Roger Ailes' interest, however, makes perfect sense.

As for Fox News' defense, the Republican network is sticking to its usual m.o. For years, when Fox News faces criticism, it lashes out at its detractors, mirroring the kind of tactics one might see from a rapid-response team on a Republican campaign. Facing allegations stemming from the $1 million donation to the RGA, we're seeing the usual tactics once again.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

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 Louisiana, Sen. David Vitter's (R) primary challenger, Chet Traylor, has a very hard-hitting new radio ad, urging Republicans to "man up" and vote out the incumbent.

* In Florida, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Charlie Crist (I) leading this year's Senate race, enjoying a seven point lead over Marco Rubio (R), 39% to 32%. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) is a distant third at 16%.

* On a related note, the same poll shows state CFO Alex Sink (D) edging ahead in Florida's gubernatorial race, topping state A.G. Bill McCollum (R) by two and disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott by four.

* In Pennsylvania, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows former right-wing Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Rep. Joe Sestak (D) in this year's Senate race, 45% to 36%.

* PPP also finds the Republican leading Pennsylvania's gubernatorial race, with Tom Corbett (R) well ahead of Dan Onorato (D), 48% to 35%.

* Colorado Republicans still hope to convince Dan Maes to drop his odd gubernatorial campaign, even after winning last week's GOP primary, but the candidate doesn't appear willing to go anywhere.

* On a related note, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D), now the leading gubernatorial candidate, has an amusing new ad in which he spends a fair amount of time in the shower.

* In Missouri, Senate candidate Robin Carnahan (D) has a tough new ad targeting Rep. Roy Blunt (R), identifying him as the leading proponent of the unpopular financial industry bailout. It includes a quote from CBS's Bob Schieffer, during an interview with Blunt, identifying the Republican as the man who "carried the water for the Bush administration."

* To say Republicans are cruising in Kansas' statewide races would be an understatement. A new SurveyUSA poll shows Rep. Jerry Moran (R) leading the U.S. Senate race by 46 points, and Sen. Sam Brownback (R) leading the gubernatorial race by 42 points.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S NOT JUST THE ZOMBIE LIE THAT'S THE PROBLEM.... A little too often, our discourse is just disheartening.

Now comes fresh evidence of misperceptions about the president taking root in the public mind: a new poll by the Pew Research Center finds a substantial rise in the percentage of Americans who believe, incorrectly, that Mr. Obama is Muslim. The president is Christian, but 18 percent now believe he is Muslim, up from 12 percent when he ran for the presidency and 11 percent after he was inaugurated.

The findings suggest that, nearly two years into Mr. Obama's presidency, the White House is struggling with the perception of "otherness" that Candidate Obama sought so hard to overcome....

There's some politics at play, here. Indeed, more than a third of self-identified Republicans actually believe that the president is a secret Muslim. While the overall number of Americans who believe this nonsense is up, the sharpest increase comes from conservative Republicans (up 16 percentage points since last year).

If this were simply a matter of ignorant voters being mislead by right-wing garbage, it'd merely be disappointing. But in this case, there's very likely a little more to it.

Andrew Kohut, the Pew center's director, said something interesting in response to results: "This is an expression of the people who are opposed to Obama having an increasingly negative view of him."

Ben Smith suggested something similar, speculating that "telling a pollster that Obama is a Muslim is just another way of expressing disapproval." From the Pew report:

Beliefs about Obama's religion are closely linked to political judgments about him. Those who say he is a Muslim overwhelmingly disapprove of his job performance, while a majority of those who think he is a Christian approve of the job Obama is doing. Those who are unsure about Obama's religion are about evenly divided in their views of his performance.

In other words, we've come to a point in our discourse at which "Muslim" isn't an adjective used to describe 1.5 billion people; it's an adjective some Americans use as an insult. While some Democrats used to criticize George W. Bush with words like "idiot" and "liar," Obama's detractors now use "Muslim" in much the same way. And the more the president's support falters, the more "Muslim" he appears in the eyes of his critics.

As a cultural matter, this is insane. As a political matter, there doesn't appear to be much anyone can do to convince Americans that the president is not, in fact, a secret Muslim.

The White House says the public -- and the press -- are not listening. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has given six speeches either from a church pulpit or addressing religion in public life -- including an Easter prayer breakfast where he "offered a very personal and candid reflection of what the Resurrection means to him," said Joshua DuBois, who runs the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. [...]

The White House says Mr. Obama prays daily, sometimes in person or over the telephone with a small circle of Christian pastors. One of them, the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who was also a spiritual adviser to former President George W. Bush, telephoned a reporter on Wednesday, at the White House's behest. He said he was surprised that the number of Americans who say Mr. Obama is Muslim is growing.

"I must say," Mr. Caldwell said, "never in the history of modern-day presidential politics has a president confessed his faith in the Lord, and folks basically call him a liar."

Sigh.

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

ROMNEY TRIES AGAIN TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.... Just yesterday, Chris Cillizza praised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) for his "unswerving" and "laser-like focus on financial matters as he prepares to challenge the incumbent in 2012."

I don't think that's quite right. Just last month, Romney did his level best to pretend to understand foreign policy and counter-proliferation. The result was utterly humiliating.

So, the former one-term governor is shifting his "laser-like focus" away from national security and back to the economy, writing an op-ed in the Boston Globe yesterday with the usual spiel -- blame Obama for the economic mess he inherited, "uncertainty" reigns, yada, yada, yada.

Of course, this is Mitt Romney we're talking about -- a man who changes positions like most of us change socks -- so it's worth emphasizing that he approved of Obama's stimulus just last year, and predicted that the Recovery Act would "accelerate" economic growth. While yesterday's op-ed blasted cap-and-trade -- which still doesn't exist as an implemented policy -- Romney has endorsed cap-and-trade in the past.

But let's put all that aside. Pointing to Romney flip-flops is like pointing to Sarah Palin's ignorance -- it's just a little too easy. The more important point is that Romney also sketched his vision for what he'd do differently than the status quo: tax cuts, trade deals, a new energy policy, balanced budget, entitlement reform, undercut unions. There were no real details -- it's just an op-ed -- but Romney seems to be pushing an agenda that's largely indistinguishable from Bush's vision from 10 years ago.

It's also, as Ezra noted, an agenda that "seems certain to hugely increase uncertainty."

A new energy bill? Uncertainty, both during the legislative process and the regulatory definitions process. New tax proposals? Uncertainty during the long legislative process; you don't want to make capital gains decisions if you the capital gains tax rate might change pretty soon. Forcing deep budget reforms on the state level? Uncertainty, as businesses don't know what the cuts will mean for demand or infrastructure.

Now, that may all be acceptable: I'm not a big believer in the uncertainty argument, and if good policy requires a period of uncertainty, then fine. But since Romney says that the private sector is currently "paralyzed by the uncertainty," it's not clear to me how pushing a lot more uncertainty into the mix would help.

Maybe next month Romney will have a new op-ed on a new subject of interest. He's bound to get an issue right one of these days.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

ROVE PLAYS VOTERS FOR SUCKERS (AGAIN).... When I describe Karl Rove's presence in American politics as a poison in our democracy, there's a good reason for it. Consider this report from Christina Bellantoni.

Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS this week detailed the "seven public policy initiatives" that will be most important for Congress next year. The group runs ads against Democrats across the country.

On the list at No. 1: "Stop the Obama tax hike time bomb scheduled to detonate on January 1, 2011."

That's not a typo. Rove's group is claiming that Obama set the timer on that so-called "bomb."

No one should be surprised. Rove has been lying to voters, just as a matter of course, throughout his career. For a campaign operation organized by the activist/hatchet-man/media-personality to base its work on playing voters for fools is entirely predictable.

But as Rove's lies go, this one takes some chutzpah. It was Rove's White House, after all, that crafted and approved irresponsible tax cuts -- which failed miserably in their stated goal -- and put an expiration date on them. It wasn't Obama, and it wasn't Democrats -- Rove's White House played a budget game and set the lower rates to expire at the end of 2010.

If it's a "bomb," Rove helped set the timer. He has no reason to whine (or lie) about it now.

And as the "debate," such as it is, proceeds, there are two competing approaches about future tax rates. Democrats' plan leaves the lower rates for the middle- and lower-class in place, while the wealthy would go back to brackets that existed in 2000 -- back when a Democratic president left a health economy and a massive budget surplus for a Republican president to screw up. Republicans' plan, apparently endorsed by the clownish Rove, is to protect massive breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and throw the tab onto the massive deficits they left for Democrats to clean up.

Maybe Rove knows this, and is just counting on voters being dumb. Maybe Rove doesn't know this, and he's just a mindless hack. Either way, this talk of "bombs" is ridiculous.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

WHAT WAS DEAN THINKING?.... When Ben Smith first reported yesterday afternoon that Howard Dean was siding with the right on Park51, I found it hard to believe. Indeed, when I clicked the link and noticed that it had been posted by Breitbart, I held off on mentioning it all -- he does have a history with creative editing. ("Fool the political world once, shame on you....")

But Democracy for America confirmed that the recording is legitimate, and Dean really did take a line that seems completely at odds with his values and principles.

Dean responded by saying he favored some sort of "compromise" of the issue that involved using the proposed site for "people of all faiths." He called the presence of the mosque an "affront to people who lost their lives, including Muslims." He then went on to say that while the congregation building the mosque probably has good intentions, "there's no point trying to do something good if it's met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks."

How a Muslim center could be an "affront" to Muslims who were killed nine years ago is a mystery.

Apparently referring to a closed Burlington Coat Factory store, Dean added, "That site doesn't belong to any particular religion; it belongs to all people of all faiths." Asked if the proposed community center should be moved to another location, Dean said, "Well, I think another site would be a better idea."

When Sam Stein gave him a chance to walk it back, Dean more or less reiterated his position. "I don't believe all this nonsense the right wing is putting out about radicals and all that stuff," Dean said. "I take the congregation at its word that it is a moderate congregation trying to heal the wounds of 9/11. But the best way to heal the wounds is not to have a court battle, but to sit down and try to work things out."

For the record, it's not a congregation trying to build the community center, and there is no court battle.

I have no idea how Dean ended up with this position. It's just bizarre.

It's also probably worth mentioning a detail I hadn't heard before today. Politico reports that the Park51 building may not be built anyway: "The Cordoba Initiative hasn't begun fundraising yet for its $100 million goal. The group's latest fundraising report with the State Attorney General's office, from 2008, shows exactly $18,255 -- not enough even for a down payment on the half of the site the group has yet to purchase."

The national uproar is baseless anyway, but the building in question may never exist.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN ALASKA.... It's mildly annoying that Alaska is the beneficiary of extraordinary generosity from the federal government. But what truly rankles is the disconnect between the state's handouts and its political attitudes.

Backed by a blue row of saw-toothed mountain peaks, the Republican state lawmaker Carl Gatto finds himself on a fine roll.

Roll it back, he says, roll back this entire socialistic experiment in federal hegemony. Give us control of our land, let us drill and mine, and please don't let a few belugas get in the way of a perfectly good bridge.

"I've introduced legislation to roll back the federal government," he says. "They don't have solutions; they just have taxes."

And what of the federal stimulus, from which Alaska receives the most money per capita in the nation? Would he reject it?

Mr. Gatto, 72 and wiry, smiles and shakes his head: "I'll give the federal government credit: they sure give us a ton of money. For every $1 we give them in taxes for highways, they give us back $5.76."

He points to a newly graded and federally financed highway, stretching toward distant spruce trees. "Man, beautiful, right?"

Well, "beautiful" is not the first adjective that comes to mind.

The Last Frontier enjoys more federal largess than any other state. The Recovery Act delivered $3,145 per capita to Alaska, which wasn't just the highest in the nation, but was also nearly triple the national average. All told, a third of Alaska's jobs are supported by federal tax dollars, and the trend is accelerating -- in 1996, the NYT noted, Alaska's share of federal spending was 38% above the national average. Today, it's 71%.

Putting aside merit, the funds flowing into Alaska would be less annoying if the state's political culture was more aware of the reality. While the state accepts big federal checks with one hand, it seems to shake its fist at D.C. with the other: "[T]he Republican governor decries 'intrusive' Obama administration policies, officials sue to overturn the health care legislation and Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, voted against the stimulus bill."

Indeed, as we've talked about before, there's a bit of a "feature, not a bug" problem here. Alaska abolished both income and sales taxes, which made the state even more dependent on pork-barrel spending from Congress.

Something to consider the next time conservative Alaskan politicians -- including you know who -- offer lectures about big government, cutting spending, and an intrusive federal reach.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM COMES TO AN END.... It is not a "Mission Accomplished" moment, and it'd be an irresponsible exaggeration to suggest the war in Iraq is "over."

But as the last American combat soldiers head home from Iraq -- two weeks early -- and Operation Iraqi Freedom comes to a formal end, there's ample reason to be pleased with a milestone that, for a long while, seemed like it would never arrive.

The 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which left Iraq this week, was the final U.S. combat brigade to be pulled out of the country, fulfilling the Obama administration's pledge to end the U.S. combat mission by the end of August. About 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, mainly as a training force. [...]

Shortly before midnight Saturday, a group of infantrymen boarded Stryker fighting vehicles, left an increasingly sparse base behind and began scanning the sides of a desolate highway for bombs. For many veterans, including some who made the same trip in the opposite direction years ago under fire, it was a fitting way to exit. [...]

By the end of this month, the United States will have six brigades in Iraq, by far its smallest footprint since the 2003 invasion. Those that remain are conventional combat brigades reconfigured slightly and rebranded "advise and assist brigades." The primary mission of those units and the roughly 4,500 U.S. special operations forces that will stay behind will be to train Iraqi troops. Under a bilateral agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

There's still, obviously, a precarious environment on the ground. Iraqi politicians are still struggling badly to form a government; deadly violence is not uncommon; and no one is quite sure what will unfold in the absence of U.S. combat brigades. With tens of thousands of troops, and many more private contractors, still in Iraq, anyone who thinks this is "over" is mistaken.

But it's hard not to feel some satisfaction about today's milestone anyway. As recently as March -- just five months ago -- there were more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, many of them serving multiple tours. This morning, there are 50,000, and none of them is serving in a combat capacity.

In, say, 2006, this point seemed all but unreachable.

"The really big picture that we have seen in Iraq over the last year and a half to two years is this: the number of violent incidents is significantly down, the competence of Iraqi security forces is significantly up, and politics has emerged as the basic way of doing business in Iraq," said Antony Blinken, the national security adviser to Vice President Biden. "If that trend continues, and I acknowledge it is an 'if,' that creates a much better context for dealing with the very significant and serious problems that remain in Iraq."

Cheers to that.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 18, 2010

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Flooding crisis in Pakistan: "Shortages of the most basic supplies -- shelter, food and drinking water -- presented the biggest challenge for aid workers in Pakistan, the United Nations said Wednesday. Aid organizations and the United Nations itself have expressed alarm that the plight of millions of Pakistanis flooded from their land has yet to strike a sufficiently sympathetic nerve among donors -- neither governments nor the general public -- with aid trickling in far more slowly than needed."

* Satellite images: Pakistan before and after the flooding.

* Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) was facing 24 criminal counts, but was convicted yesterday on just one. On others, however, the jury was split 11 to 1, and federal prosecutors are likely to try again.

* One of the largest IPO's in American history: "General Motors filed paperwork on Wednesday to become a public company again and let the federal government begin selling down its stake in the carmaker."

* President Obama reminded folks today that Social Security is "not in crisis," and won't be privatized on his watch.

* He also doesn't regret his stated support for First Amendment principles.

* Massey: "Government investigators have cited Massey Energy for failing to report more than 20 accidents at its Upper Big Branch coal mine in the two years before an April explosion killed 29 miners there, according to documents released by the Mine Safety and Health Administration on Tuesday."

* I don't know what's gotten into Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) lately, but just a few weeks ago, he said there's "no question" that Elizabeth Warren is "qualified" to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now, he's taking a very different position.

* The right hyperventilated a bit today, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) does not want an investigation into conservative critics of the Park51 community center.

* Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson, a 9/11 widower and an attorney best known for arguing on behalf of Republicans in Bush v. Gore, thinks Obama "was probably right" to support religious liberty on the Park51 matter.

* Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has a reputation for being one of the more shamelessly anti-Muslim members of Congress, and even he thinks Newt Gingrich went too far with his Nazi comparisons.

* Note, however, that the increasingly despicable Karl Rove is making similarly vile comparisons.

* Why not have a debate about student-loan forgiveness?

* Is the DISCLOSE Act dead? Not quite yet.

* One can always tell when former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) writes her own tweets -- they're the ones with made-up words.

* Do we really need another Sunday public affairs show? Probably not, but we're getting one anyway.

* For nerds (like me) only: Wil Wheaton quits w00tstock in the most amusing way possible.

Update: I almost forgot to mention that I had an op-ed in the New York Daily News today, on the consequences of rewarding a radicalized political party. Be sure to check it out.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

THE EASIEST ANSWER HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT.... As President Obama's approval ratings drift in the wrong direction, there's a tendency for pundits to avoid the plainly obvious truth -- the economy's troubles are a severe drag on the president's popularity -- because it makes for awful columns and on-air commentary. It's just too simple. Depth of analysis is wholly unnecessary.

But Matt Bai keeps working on more sophisticated explanations anyway. In the latest take on Obama's faltering standing, Bai makes the case that the president's too much of a legislator.

The point isn't that Bai's piece is bad; it's not. The point is, if unemployment was 7% and falling, does anyone seriously believe we'd be having this conversation? I'm not going to claim to be an expert on public opinion, but I'm pretty comfortable guessing that much of the country hoped/expected the economy to be stronger at this point. They're frustrated and nervous, so they're dissatisfied with the man in the Oval Office.

It's hardly unprecedented. At this point 28 years ago, unemployment was even higher, and President Reagan's slipping poll numbers were nearly identical to Obama's trajectory now. Voters then, as now, expected the exciting new president to generate a stronger economy, and then, as now, they blamed the chief executive for falling short.

Steve Kornacki recently offered a helpful walk down memory lane.

After the '82 vote, Reagan faced calls from his fellow Republicans not to seek reelection in 1984. Some outspoken conservatives even demanded -- publicly -- that he be challenged in the '84 primaries if he went ahead and ran. (Jack Kemp, William Armstrong and Jesse Helms were all touted as would-be challengers.) Liberal Republicans (they still existed, sort of) were equally discontent; a pre-scandal Bob Packwood made a late '82 trip to New Hampshire, teasing a possible bid of his own. And Capitol Hill Republicans began charting a course independent of the Reagan White House.

All of this stopped only when the economy -- and, as a result, Reagan's poll numbers -- began showing life in '83.

Republicans tend to hate this history, not because it's wrong, but because it's inconsistent with the myth they've worked so hard to sell. Wait, you mean Reagan wasn't universally loved at all times? Congressional Republicans didn't want to campaign with him, and party leaders worried in '82 that Reagan was in over his head? Well, yes, that's exactly what happened.

And then the economy got better.

It's why it's easy to draw conclusions now. A stronger economy will bolster Obama's standing. A weaker economy will not. This isn't rocket science.

Sure, individual events can generate peaks and valleys. There's some evidence that the media criticism in May on the BP oil spill had a negative effect on the president's numbers, and it's possible the Park51 story is costing him a little. Of course, if Osama bin Laden were killed tomorrow, Obama might get a bump in the other direction.

But the larger truth is still unavoidable -- the president's numbers will rise when the economy does -- and very easy to understand.

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

DGA CALLS ON FOX NEWS TO MAKE DISCLAIMERS.... Fox News' parent company, News Corp, raised some eyebrows with its $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association. There's just no modern precedent for a media conglomerate to offer this kind of financial support to a party's campaign committee.

Today, Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, contacted Fox News CEO Roger Ailes with a suggestion of sorts. The network's news division, Daschle said, should add a disclaimer during its coverage of gubernatorial races. He even wrote a sample script of what Fox News' on-air talent should say: "News Corp., parent company of Fox News, provided $1 million to defeat Democratic governors in November."

In the letter to Ailes, Daschle added, "If you do not add a disclaimer, I request that you and your staff members on the 'fair and balanced' side of the network demand that the contribution be returned.

"For the first time in history, your organization is openly and proudly supporting the defeat of Democratic governors with an unprecedented political contribution of $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. In fact, your company provided the single largest corporate contribution to our opposition.... As you are well aware, the stakes could not be higher in the 37 gubernatorial races this election cycle."

I don't imagine Ailes intends to act on this, but the DGA's argument is hardly baseless. Put it this way: imagine what Republicans would be saying right now if the New York Times Company contributed $1 million to the DSCC, but assured Republicans that its coverage of this year's Senate races would remain entirely fair and even-handed.

Daschle's full letter -- and its extremely amusing postscript -- is available below.

Mr. Roger Ailes
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
and VIA EMAIL

Dear Mr. Ailes,

For the first time in history, your organization is openly and proudly supporting the defeat of Democratic governors with an unprecedented political contribution of $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. In fact, your company provided the single largest corporate contribution to our opposition.

In the interest of some fairness and balance, I request that you add a formal disclaimer to your news coverage any time any of your programs cover governors or gubernatorial races between now and Election Day. I suggest that the disclaimer say: "News Corp., parent company of Fox News, provided $1 million to defeat Democratic governors in November." If you do not add a disclaimer, I request that you and your staff members on the "fair and balanced" side of the network demand that the contribution be returned.

As you are well aware, the stakes could not be higher in the 37 gubernatorial races this election cycle. Your corporation and your allies know well that these races have grave and substantial implications for Congressional redistricting. In fact, your allies in the GOP hope to change our election map for decades by electing governors who will redraw 30 seats into Republican territory.

I look forward to hearing from you - or any of your programs - at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
Nathan Daschle

P.S. Many news outlets have covered this controversy, but your own news programs have been strangely silent. I am available to appear on any of your programs to discuss the case for Democratic governors - particularly why our governors best for business growth. Despite my efforts to immediately reach out to your news programs, more than a dozen requests were ignored.

Cc: Bret Baier
Carl Cameron
Gretchen Carlson
Neil Cavuto
Steve Doocy
Trace Gallagher
Major Garrett
Sean Hannity
Bill Hemmer
Brian Kilmeade
Megyn Kelly
Martha MacCallum
Bill O'Reilly
Jon Scott
Shepard Smith
Greta Van Susteren
Chris Wallace

Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE PAY GAP.... Looking back through recent history, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce isn't exactly known for its efforts championing the concerns of women in the workforce. The Chamber, among other things, has opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Family & Medical Leave Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

But the Chamber of Commerce still manages to surprise.

Today is the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, establishing American women's right to vote. To honor the occasion, Jen O'Malley Dillon, the executive director of the Democratic National Committee, sent a message to the party's email list, heralding the date's significance, but noting there's still work to be done, especially in closing the gender pay gap.

The Chamber was unimpressed, and said so on its official blog, arguing that those "fighting for 'full equality' are trying to actually legislate away choice." The piece goes on to draw some bizarre conclusions from a recent David Leonhardt piece in the New York Times.

There is much that was good in this article -- for instance the acknowledgment that most of the current "pay gap" is the result of individual choice rather than discrimination; but I believe that the overall tone is one of those cultural changes we need to make -- the idea that giving up "pay and promotions" is a "terribly steep price" to pay for time away from work. These are only two of the many things that people value and depending on the weight that you assign to each of your values giving up a little might gain you a lot. Equality is a matter of ensuring equal access to opportunity, not ensuring identical outcomes in some areas depending on which opportunities you choose to take.

On a similar note around the same time the NY Times article appeared, Don Boudreaux wrote on income inequality in general noting: "Not only does achievement of such "equality" require the state to treat people unequally, obsession with income equality also reflects a Scrooge-like fetish for money."

I had to read this a couple of times to make sure it wasn't satire.

It went on to excerpt this exceedingly odd analogy, which seems to compare women to couch potatoes.

Consider a man who spends long hours at the gym. He does so for the same reasons that another man spends long hours at work: to gain an advantage and a sense of achievement. Are gym-man's broad shoulders, bulging biceps, and ripped torso appropriate objects of envy by couch-potato man? Is this envy a social problem demanding government action? Should gym-man be scorned as greedy for working extra-hard to improve his physique -- extra-hard work that likely wins gym-man disproportionate access to attractive mates? Should government force gym-man to share his beautiful babes with couch-potato man? Should gym-man's muscles, or natural good looks, be taxed?

If we recognize that envy of other persons' physiques is a sentiment deserving only ridicule, why do so many "Progressives" excuse - or even positively approve of - envy of other persons' monetary assets?

The post concluded that the "obvious" solution to these issues is "choosing the right place to work and choosing the right partner at home."

To be sure, I don't expect much from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but on the anniversary of women's suffrage -- or, indeed, any day -- it's hard to fathom what the group was thinking publishing this.

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

NELSON'S STILL-MISPLACED PRIORITIES.... In the weeks leading up to the Senate's August recess, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) effectively drew a line in the sand -- he wouldn't vote for anything, regardless of merit, if it increased the deficit. He opposed extending unemployment benefits, for example, because they weren't fully paid for, and that was more important than aid for the jobless.

Confronted in June with a bill to boost the economy, Nelson balked because only part of the bill was paid for. "[T]he American people are right," he said at the time. "We've got to stop doing that."

Putting aside Nelson's finger on the pulse of the nation -- most evidence suggests the public is far more concerned with the economy than the deficit -- the conservative Nebraskan hasn't given up on this misplaced priorities. Even during the recess, Ben Nelson continues to annoy.

Centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Tuesday he plans to introduce legislation that would require unused portions of the recently-passed state aid package to go toward bringing down the federal budget deficit.

President Obama last week signed the $26 billion state aid package after the House returned from recess to approve it. Nelson said that his legislation would apply to the $10 billion education jobs fund included in the bill.

"The new law will keep thousands of teachers on the job across our country and I'm pleased that it is fully paid for by cutting other federal spending and closing foreign tax loopholes for businesses," Nelson said in a statement. "If a state or states, however, don't need the additional money, we should make sure the unused funds aren't shipped off to other states. Instead, the unused funds should pay down the federal deficit."

Heaven forbid that money intended for one state might save some jobs in another. What really matters is whether we can reduce the deficit by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

Except that's ridiculous. The economy is struggling, and needs stimulus. There's a jobs crisis. The whole point of the state-aid jobs bill was to spend some money and save some jobs. Nelson insisted that bill be paid for -- itself a rather silly, since the government is supposed to deficit spend during difficult economic times -- and it was.

But before the funding even starts to kick in, Nelson is already preoccupied with getting some of it back and lowering a deficit that should rank very low on his list of priorities.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

SHARRON ANGLE AND THE STIMULUS OF WORLD WAR II.... Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, is slowly but surely starting to engage the media a little more. Yesterday, she even chatted with the New York Times at a campaign office in Las Vegas.

To be sure, Angle seemed cautious, and didn't make any comments that are likely to become major controversies, but there was an exchange that stood out for me.

Q. Did Keynesian economics, the stimulus spending, work in the Depression of the '30s?

A. No. And I think history has really proven that to be true. Most economists agree that the thing that really worked, which is a sad commentary, is the war.

Now, it's no longer unusual for right-wing voices to insist that the New Deal didn't work. It's an absurd position, belied by reality, but it's hardly shocking anymore. Republicans went through a period in which they moved away from Hoover and accepted much of the FDR legacy -- just ask Ike -- but those days are over, and Hoover is back en vogue amongst 21st century Republicans. It's crazy, but it's true.

But it's that other part of the answer that I found confusing. The Depression ended once and for all, thanks to World War II. That's not an unreasonable assessment. But what does Angle think that means, exactly. In the first breath, she argued that Keynesian economics and stimulus spending were discredited. In the second breath, she argued that WWII boosted the economy.

But the first thought doesn't match the second. The war was a shot in the economy's arm because of all the spending. The government generated manufacturing on a scale unseen in American history, which put people back to work, got factories humming, etc. If Angle realizes the war improved the economy, how, exactly, does she think that happened?*

The rest of the interview was relatively boilerplate -- she wants to "pay back on the debt" and "reduce marginal tax rates," blissfully unaware of the contradiction -- and a reminder of why Angle is hard to take seriously.

But also note that the NYT asked if she's "too conservative" for Nevada. Angle replied, "People have always said -- those words, 'too conservative,' is fairly relative. I'm sure that they probably said that about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Benjamin Franklin."

First, no, "they" didn't. Second, we knew Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin; Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin were friends of ours.

Sharron Angle, you're no Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin.

* edited slightly for clarity

Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

Bookmark and Share

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* In the state of Washington, Sen. Patty Murray (D) and Dino Rossi (R) won a "top-two" primary yesterday, and will face off against one another in November. Former football player Clint Didier (R) finished a distant third, despite support from Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin.

* Wyoming Republicans held their gubernatorial primary yesterday, and Matthew Mead narrowly defeated state Auditor Rita Meyer, despite Palin's backing of Meyer. Leslie Peterson narrowly won the Democratic primary, and will face Mead in the fall.

* In Kentucky's closely-watched Senate race, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Rand Paul (R) leading state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) by just five, 45% to 40%. Other recent polling has shown Paul with a larger lead.

* In Florida, a new Quinnipiac poll shows the self-financers trailing in their respective primaries. In the GOP gubernatorial race, state Attorney General Bill McCollum now leads disgraced former health insurance executive Rick Scott. 44% to 35%. In the Democratic Senate race, Rep. Kendrick Meek leads Jeff Greene, 35% to 28%.

* The latest survey from Public Policy Polling on Illinois' Senate race shows Alexi Giannoulias (D) with a two-point edge over Rep. Mark Kirk (R), 37% to 35%.

* In Missouri's Senate race, Public Policy Polling finds Rep. Roy Blunt (R) leading Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) by seven, 45% to 38%.

* Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), the leading Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, fought for years to deregulate risky derivatives on Wall Street. This week, it's starting to come back to haunt him.

* Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) continues to feel the heat from his former supporters after voting with Republicans against health care reform in March. The Service Employees International Union is launching a program, called "Skip-a-Space," urging Democrats to withhold support from the incumbent.

* Former Rep. Rick Lazio (R), running for governor in New York this year, is now building his campaign strategy around hostility for a Muslim community center in lower Manhattan. By all appearances, it's not working.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

A JOBS AGENDA, CONT'D.... The Washington Post reported the other day that congressional Democrats, obviously nervous about the midterms, have some major accomplishments to tout and a reasonably good sense of how to defend their record. They have no idea, however, what to do next -- the majority party has found itself "without a clear plan of their own to promote in the final 80 days of the 2010 campaign."

Harold Meyerson notes that more government intervention is called for, but the political process is paralyzed, and the idea of additional governmental activism has been "discredited ... with much of the public, and not just the far right."

Meyerson does, however, have a suggestion.

If the Democrats focused on boosting manufacturing, with a corollary upgrade to our infrastructure, they'd tap into the only area in which the public wants a more activist government.

Several recent polls have called the Democrats' attention to what should have been obvious to them: That helping America regain its industrial preeminence is one government activity that wins support across the board. One recent survey by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman found 78 percent support for having a "national manufacturing strategy," while 92 percent said they supported infrastructure improvements using only American-made materials. Another survey from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found 52 percent of respondents preferred government investment "in the future," while just 42 percent favored the alternative course of large spending cuts.

The appeal of bolstering manufacturing and upgrading infrastructure cuts across lines of race, gender and class. Even a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh would have trouble characterizing them, as he did health-care reform, as "reparations." Just as important, the public is right. Every bit of economic news confirms its apprehensions that by off-shoring our manufacturing, we have not only eliminated millions of good-paying jobs but we have also rendered ourselves incapable of regaining our economic health. The two major economies that are booming amidst the global bust are China's and Germany's -- that is, the two major economies most oriented to manufacturing.

Of course, anyone who's paid even the slightest attention to recent political debates knows exactly how this would be received. Republicans and their cable network would bash the idea of "additional spending" -- even if that spending is popular, even if it boosted the economy -- because it would add to the deficit.

But that's where the recent GOP shift comes in. Over the last few weeks, the entire House Republican leadership team has, in public and on the record, argued that the economy is more important than the deficit. In context, that meant they're prepared to add the price of tax cuts for millionaires to the deficit, but the larger point was the same -- the deficit matters, but jobs matter more.

Democrats happen to agree with the sentiment, but not the prescription. So, why not have the debate? Present voters with two competing visions -- Democrats want to take a pile of money, spend it on American infrastructure, manufacturing, and jobs, and add the total to the deficit. Republicans want to take a pile of money, hand it over to millionaires and billionaires in the form of tax breaks, hope that the money trickles down, and add the total to the deficit.

Two competing approaches, both expensive, and both increasing the deficit in the short term. Line the options up and let's have the conversation.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

THAT'S THE OTHER GUYS.... Shortly before the House broke for its August recess, Republicans killed a bill that seemed like one of the year's most obvious no-brainers.

The Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act would pay health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers, sickened after exposure to the toxic smoke and debris. The legislation was fully paid for, closing a tax loophole for American companies that try to hide their headquarters at P.O. box in the Caymans.

The GOP trashed the bill, calling the money a "slush fund." It needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and came up short -- nearly every Democrat voted for it, and nearly every Republican voted against it.

Yesterday, some of the heroes and their families who need this bill to pass expressed their deep disappointment -- by blaming President Obama for legislation that Republicans opposed.

Ailing 9/11 responders slammed President Obama on Tuesday for sounding off on the Ground Zero mosque while keeping silent on a $7.2 billion health care bill.

"Why have you failed us? We thought you would be our champion" in pushing the legislation, John Feal wrote to Obama.

So, let me get this straight. Obama supports the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Congressional Democrats support the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. If passed, the president would gladly sign the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act into law. Republicans not only trashed the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, but blocked it from passing.

But Obama has "failed" 9/11 responders?

I'm reminded of that episode of "The West Wing," in the third season, when Donna tells Josh about some voters' concerns about Bartlett. "They think the President is going to privatize Social Security," Donna said. "He's not going to ... that's the other guys!" Josh replied.

Obama's right about health care for 9/11 first responders. It's "the other guys" who are the problem.

Indeed, for all the recent attention about converting a closed-down Burlington Coat Factory into a local community center, many of the same politicians who claim to have endless passion in defense of Ground Zero had (a) no qualms about voting against the 9/11 health care bill; or (b) no criticism for those who did.

The disconnect matters.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN EVEN PAT BUCHANAN THINKS YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR.... This week, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R), hoping to make the case against the proposed Park51 community center, compared Muslim Americans to Nazis. On MSNBC yesterday, Pat Buchanan -- yes Pat Buchanan -- said Gingrich went too far.

Buchanan said Gingrich is just being a "political opportunist," hoping to keep up with former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in advance of the 2012 presidential primaries.

"How do you get more attention than Sarah Palin, who's very good at this, is to go two steps further," Buchanan said. "I mean, I think bringing the Nazis into the argument is always absurd in American politics because there is no valid comparison there."

As much as I appreciate Buchanan's criticism, I can't help but notice how odd it is to hear him to say "bringing the Nazis into the argument is always absurd in American politics." A year ago, it was none other than Pat Buchanan who compared non-existent "death panels" as part of health care reform to "Hitler's Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy." He's also offered some bizarre commentary on Hitler's intentions during World War II.

With that in mind, when Buchanan thinks Gingrich has gone too far with Nazi rhetoric, you know ol' Newt has pushed the envelope.

Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

RAND PAUL'S TAX CUTS CAN CURE A DRUG EPIDEMIC.... The drug epidemic in Eastern Kentucky is responsible for severe damage to local communities. As Larry Dale Keeling noted this week, the consequences include "shortened lives (114 overdose deaths in 21 counties in the first two months of this year), fractured families and the crime that has given Kentucky the dubious distinction of having the fastest-growing prison population in the nation."

Right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul, the Republican Senate candidate who isn't well versed on the state he hopes to represent, recently said the area's drug problem isn't "a real pressing issue." Even for a candidate known for bizarre remarks, this was rather astounding.

This week, Paul tried to "clarify" his dismissive attitude, and highlighted his proposed solution to the local drug problem: tax cuts for millionaires.

"I personally think we've been trying the government solution, and maybe there are some good aspects to it. But we're still failing, and we're not getting rid of the drug problem," Paul said.

Paul says reinvesting money in the local economy will help ease the unemployment, which he says leads to more drug use.

"You want rich people because that's what creates jobs. If you punish people, they won't expand or create jobs," Paul said.

This is incoherent, the kind of remark made by those who know very little about the economy, and even less about drug policy.

Greg Sargent followed up with the Paul campaign, wondering whether the candidate's remarks reflect his actual agenda. A campaign spokesperson explained in a statement, "The abuse of both legal and illegal drugs is serious and complex issue. We must keep a strong focus on prevention, treatment and enforcement, and healthy employment is great prevention. There is no silver bullet, but a gainfully employed, productive person will be far less likely to succumb to the evils drugs."

In other words, Paul's original position wasn't a slip-up -- more jobs means less of a drug crisis, a healthier economy means more jobs, and tax cuts for the rich means a healthier economy.

As for "prevention, treatment and enforcement," there's generally not much profit in these efforts, which is why they usually fall to government agencies. If Paul's is opposed to "government solutions," where will the resources come from to pay for the "prevention, treatment and enforcement"?

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

NEWS CORP'S GOP DONATION RAISES EYEBROWS.... Media conglomerates don't often give $1 million to a political party to help influence statewide campaigns. It's encouraging, then, that News Corp's seven-figure check to the Republican Governors Association is generating some discussion.

The contribution from Mr. Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and other news outlets, is one of the biggest ever given by a media organization, campaign finance experts said.

Democrats seized on the donation as evidence of the News Corporation's conservative leanings, with Media Matters for America, a liberal group that has tangled often with the company, calling it "an appendage of the Republican Party."

But News Corporation executives said the political priorities at the Republican Governors Association and its emphasis on low taxes and economic growth dovetailed with the company's own concerns. "News Corp. has always believed in the power of free markets, and organizations like the R.G.A., which have a pro-business agenda, support our priorities at this most critical time for our economy," said Jack Horner, a company spokesman.

What a terrific response. News Corp is facing questions about the propriety of a media conglomerate giving Republicans a cool million, and as a defense, the corporation effectively replies, "But we really like Republicans."

We know. That's why the check was written. The point isn't whether News Corp and Republicans have a shared worldview; the point is whether the financial support is appropriate.

At a minimum, it's breaking new ground: "Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said seven-figure donations from anyone to '527' associations were unusual, but a $1 million donation from a news organization was particularly rare." A Politico report added that the contribution "isn't business as usual -- in either size or style."

What's more, Amanda Terkel noted that News Corp's own "Standards of Business Conduct" may prohibit exactly the kind of financial support the company is providing the Republican Governors Association, but like the media company's journalistic principles, it appears these standards may be malleable.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

DR. LAURA'S RACIST TIRADE LEADS TO RADIO SHOW'S END.... It takes an awful lot to force a conservative talk-radio host off the air, but as it turns out, there are apparently some limits. Just ask Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

If you're just joining us, a woman called Schlessinger's show last week with an upsetting problem. The caller is in an inter-racial marriage -- she's black, her husband is white -- and is offended when her husband's friends and family members make racist remarks. Schlessinger blamed the woman, telling the caller that she's "hypersensitive" -- a problem "bred by black activists" -- and needs a better sense of humor. To prove the point, Schlessinger repeated the N-word 11 times, defending it by saying "black guys say it all the time."

Last night, Schlessinger announced that she's ending her radio show.

Dr. Schlessinger made the announcement on Tuesday night on "Larry King Live," saying she made a decision not to renew her contract when it expires at the end of the year and suggesting that she did not want her opinions and language, however provocative, to be muzzled

"I want to regain my First Amendment rights," she said. "I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."

But she stressed that she was not retiring, only ending her show, and would continue to write books and appear at speaking engagements.

"I'm not quitting," she told Larry King. "I feel energized actually -- stronger and freer to say the things that I believe need to be said for people in this country."

Oddly enough, last week, facing criticism, Schlessinger expressed regret for her remarks and acknowledged that her on-air remarks were "wrong." By last night, however, her contrition appeared to be gone and the incident was everyone's fault but hers.

Media Matters' Eric Burns said in a statement, "Dr. Laura's radio career ended in disgrace tonight because of the bigoted, ugly and hateful remarks made on her show. Americans have had enough. Listeners are now holding hosts, affiliates, and sponsors accountable for the offensive and inexcusable content on the airwaves."

Here's hoping that trend continues.

Postscript: Funniest line I've seen so far: "Dr. Laura announces retirement to spend more time with the N-Word."

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 17, 2010

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Baghdad: "A suicide bomber struck early on Tuesday at an army recruiting office here, killing dozens in the first major bombing of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan — a period made more fraught than in previous years by the looming deadline for American forces to replace their combat mission here with a training role." The toll so far: 48 dead and 129 wounded.

* Crisis in Pakistan: "With disastrous flooding spreading yet more widely in Pakistan, reports of looting and protests over food on Tuesday deepened the sense of desperation across Punjab Province, the country's most populous region and its agricultural hub."

* It wasn't much, but I'm so desperate for good economic news that a slight improvement in the housing market and a jump in industrial production seemed huge.

* The things one finds when cleaning up: "The CIA has videotapes, after all, of interrogations in a secret overseas prison of admitted 9/11 plotter Ramzi Binalshibh. Discovered in a box under a desk at the CIA, the tapes could reveal how foreign governments aided the United States in holding and interrogating suspects. And they could complicate U.S. efforts to prosecute Binalshibh, who has been described as one of the 'key plot facilitators' in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

* A step in the right direction: "The White House is preparing a package of measures that would expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba and send money there, congressional and Obama administration officials said Tuesday." The measures won't need congressional support.

* Great pieces on Park51 from Dana Milbank and Peter Beinart.

* Don't expect George W. Bush to step up and set his party straight.

* Rep. Michael Arcuri (D) of New York really ought to be ashamed of himself.

* Jonathan Cohn is back from New Orleans, offering an in-depth look at the city five years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. His first installment was yesterday, the second was published this morning. Worth a read.

* She's absolutely right: "Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has taken up the cause of reforming state judicial campaign and election systems, writing that the 'crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing.'"

* Yet another worthwhile stimulus project that wouldn't exist if the GOP had its way.

* I think Roger Simon intended this to be tongue-in-cheek. I also think a lot of folks didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

* Daniel Luzer: "[T]he majority of students who attend for-profit schools don't pay back their loans. This isn't really much of a surprise. More interestingly, however, this indicates that loan repayment rates are pretty bad everywhere."

* Elon Green lists the "10 Young Right-Wingers Being Prepped to Take Over the Conservative Movement."

* The estimable Anonymous Liberal: "If terrorists 'hate us because of our freedoms,' then failing to respect those freedoms amounts to appeasement, right? ... That makes Bill Kristol the Neville Chamberlain of this debate. If he was capable of logical thought, his head might explode."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

MURDOCH LIED.... It was just a few months ago that Rupert Murdoch was asked whether it's appropriate for Fox News to play an active role in supporting the so-called Tea Party "movement."

The News Corp. CEO replied, "I don't think we should be supporting the Tea Party or any other party."

Ahem.

Media Matters' video on this seems pretty effective:

Note the tag line: "Fox is not news. It's a 24/7 political organization."

Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

PAWLENTY STRUGGLES TO KEEP UP WITH CURRENT EVENTS.... I don't expect much from Tim Pawlenty. He has a presidential campaign to prepare, and a right-wing base to pander to, so it's inevitable that much of his rhetoric will be cheap and silly.

But this is ridiculous, even for Pawlenty.

Add Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) to the list politicians with selective memory about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's global outreach on behalf of the United States.

Pawlenty, a presidential hopeful for 2012, appeared on Fox News' "Hannity" last night to decry Obama's support for the Islamic cultural center proposed by Rauf's Cordoba House at a site two blocks from Ground Zero. He also criticized the State Department for sending Rauf on a diplomatic mission to the Middle East, saying that was "disgusting" and "dangerous."

"To have him be the leader not just of this mosque but to hire him through the State Department and send him around the world on our behalf is ridiculous," Pawlenty told Sean Hannity. "It is quite quite dangerous, quite concerning."

Now, Pawlenty doesn't know anything about national security, diplomacy, or foreign policy, so it stands to reason that he'd be confused about this. But he should at least try to keep up with current events before talking nonsense on national television.

As Adam Serwer reported last week, the State Department has "a long-term relationship" with Rauf -- which includes the Bush administration also sending him to the Middle East to assist with the U.S. diplomatic agenda in the region.

Was that "quite, quite dangerous," too?

For that matter, the FBI partnered with Rauf in 2003 on counter-terrorism efforts. Indeed, the FBI considered him an ally and one of New York's most respected Muslim voices.

Was that "ridiculous," too?

It's ironic -- every time Pawlenty takes steps to seem more credible, he ends up looking more foolish.

Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

A MEDIA STRATEGY COMES INTO FOCUS.... One of the year's more noteworthy campaign trends is the habit of right-wing candidates to avoid the media. While candidates, especially those seeking statewide office, traditionally fight tooth and nail for as much attention as they can get, this year, we're seeing more and more Republican politicians avoiding -- and in some cases, literally running away from -- reporters.

The reasoning isn't exactly a mystery. Journalists tend to ask candidates about their views, public remarks, policy positions, etc. For extremist candidates like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle, it makes for uncomfortable interviews, which usually make the Republicans look pretty foolish.

But it's worth noting that sometimes the strategy makes sense. Ron Johnson (R), taking on Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in Wisconsin this year, is one of 2010's nuttiest candidates, and his staff has wisely shielded him from potential embarrassments (i.e., questions about his beliefs). But as we've seen, it's tough to keep a journalist boycott going indefinitely, and yesterday, Johnson sat down with editors and reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

A global warming skeptic, Johnson said extreme weather phenomena were better explained by sunspots than an overload of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as many scientists believe.

"I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change," Johnson said. "It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination."

Johnson, in an interview last month, described believers in manmade causes of climate change as "crazy" and the theory as "lunacy."

"It's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time," he said.

It was probably about this time that a Johnson aide, standing just out of earshot, turned to the campaign manager and said, "I told you this was a bad idea."

Lest anyone think there may be something to this, Zaid Jilani explained, "[S]unspots have been at a historic lows. As the Wonk Room's Brad Johnson notes, 'Severe weather fueled by global warming pollution is having an even more devastating impact around the world.... All of these disasters were predicted by climate scientists as a consequence of greenhouse gas pollution from burning fossil fuels.'"

Ideally, candidates who are too bizarre to speak to the media probably shouldn't be running. But once the damage is done, a campaign has to realize it's political suicide to let its candidate speak freely and make a fool of himself.

In other words, I don't imagine Wisconsin newspapers will be having too many more sit-downs with Ron Johnson anytime soon.

Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

'I HAVE NOT CHANGED IN MY POSITIONS'.... Jill Lawrence caught up with Sen. John McCain (R) in Arizona, and brought up Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) recent assertion that McCain has no choice but to move away from some of his previous positions. "John's got a primary," Graham said. "He's got to focus on getting re-elected."

McCain interrupts me. "Lindsey knows that I don't change in my positions," he says. "I have not changed in my positions. I know how popular it is for the Eastern press to paint me as having changed positions. That's not true. I know they're going to continue to say it. It's fundamentally false. Not only am I sure that they'll say it, you'll say it. You'll write it. And I've just grown to accept that."

McCain continues to sound bitter and belligerent -- he's convinced journalists are desperate "to see John McCain, the nominee of the Republican Party, in serious trouble" -- just for bitterness' sake. He brings up his failed presidential campaign, only to pretend he's moved past it. It's kind of sad, really.

But for McCain to angrily insist he's hasn't changed his positions, and that the very idea is "fundamentally false," is pretty silly, even by his standards.

Can anyone name a single major policy position that McCain hasn't flip-flopped on? I've looked and can't think of any.

I mean that quite literally. Some of the more recent reversals -- on immigration policy, on cap-and-trade, on Supreme Court nominees, on Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- are glaring because they deal with issues that have been the subject of a lot of attention of late, but this is a man who has nothing in common with previous iterations of himself. McCain did, after all, recently claim, "I never considered myself a maverick."

McCain also vowed, just last week, that if re-elected, he promises not to work in a bipartisan fashion on immigration policy -- a complete reversal to the entire image he built up over the last decade.

It's tempting to run through the entire compilation of every McCain reversal, but when I gave up keeping track two years ago, the list was awfully long. His changed positions encompassed everything from taxes, to national security, to culture-war issues, to foreign policy, to constitutional policy, to the economy, to campaign-finance reform.

John McCain has shed one skin, only to climb into a very different one. For him to insist, on the record and with a straight face, "I don't change in my positions," is among the single most ridiculous claims I've ever heard.

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

'THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR INACTION'.... In his Oval Office address in June, President Obama tried, once again, to remind Americans that our approach to energy policy, and our failure to position ourselves for international competition, is costing us dearly. "The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America," he said.

It's hard to overstate how true this is. In June, a New Jersey company held the license to technology that "makes solar panels cheaper, more efficient and less toxic to the environment." The company's chief executive, an American and retired Marine, decided he had no choice but to move his operation to China, which reached out to the company. "The Chinese have a major, aggressive movement to increase the technology in the photovoltaic area," Chuck Provini said. "They picked up the phone and called us and said, 'What do you do?'"

The result: an American company's technology will be commercialized overseas. The economic boost and the hundreds of new jobs will be in China, not here. As ABC News reported, we're not only lagging behind China, but Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain all have a national clean energy policy, and are all taking clean-energy investments more seriously than the United States.

And it's getting worse. Deutsche Bank has making billions of dollars in energy-policy investments. Guess where the money's going? Western Europe and China. Guess why:

Amid so much political uncertainty in the United States, Parker said Deutsche Bank will focus its "green" investment dollars more and more on opportunities in China and Western Europe, where it sees governments providing a more positive environment.

"They're asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry," [Deutsche Bank's Kevin] Parker said of Washington's inability to seal a climate-change program and other alternative energy incentives into place.

Every policy challenge need not be seen through a partisan lens, but this one should -- America is faltering on energy because the Republican Party demands it. The U.S. is falling behind international competitors because the GOP thinks "drill, baby, drill" is a substantive idea, climate science is a Marxist plot, cap-and-trade (an idea Republicans came up with) is radical and dangerous, and a national clean energy policy is wholly unnecessary.

Of course, this wouldn't necessarily matter -- the GOP is in the minority -- but our political system, for the first time in American history, requires super-majorities just to have a vote. The result is legislative paralysis, and a clean-energy revolution that is leaving the United States behind.

Misguided Republican nonsense is costing the nation dearly, and after the midterm, and expected GOP gains, this is only going to get worse.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

A PROVOCATIVE COMPARISON.... Last night's segment on Park51 on "The Daily Show" featured some pretty brilliant insights, most notably Glenn Beck trashing Feisal Abdul Rauf for making nearly identical remarks to Glenn Beck's own on-air commentary.

But of particular interest was the discussion between Jon Stewart and John Oliver about the conservative drive to conflate terrorists with all Muslims, even Muslim Americans. Oliver offered a tongue-in-cheek summary of the right-wing line: "What Newt Gingrich is trying to say is that Islam, like every religion, has to be responsible for its biggest assholes." When Stewart asked why faith traditions have to "bend to people's worst suspicions about them," Oliver replied:

"Because there is a difference between what you can do, and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic Church next to a playground. Should you? Or am I alone in thinking it's a little too soon for that?"

Well, that's not going to go over well at the Catholic League.

The comparison was obviously provocative, and intended to be confrontational -- it's a comedy show, after all, highlighting the absurdities of our discourse and modern life -- but it'd be a mistake to dismiss the point reflexively.

After all, we're dealing with a political environment in which many Americans want to blame an entire faith tradition for the gut-wrenching crimes of violent fanatics and monsters. What happens, then, if one takes John Oliver's question seriously?

Everyone is well aware of the horrific scandal that has plagued the Roman Catholic Church, in which priests sexually abused countless children -- across the United States, and around the world -- and church officials neglected to act, often engaging in an international cover-up.

If a congregation wanted to build a church next to a children's playground, would conservatives ask why it has to be right next to the playground? What about the feelings of the abused children's parents? Can't the church at least be five blocks away, just out of respect?

Of course, the questions are absurd on its face -- by no reasonable standard should Roman Catholic Churches be assumed to be dangerous to children, just because of a systemic scandal involving sexual abuse. In America, we just wouldn't tolerate this kind of discrimination.

But we should be just as offended when the same discriminatory attitudes are applied to other American minority faiths.

The video of the segment is below.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party
Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* It's primary day in Wyoming and the state of Washington. The former will host a gubernatorial primary, while the latter holds a Senate primary.

* Disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott (R) launched a new television ad yesterday, urging voters to elect him governor of Florida because he opposes a community center in lower Manhattan. He made no effort to connect the two in any way, but seems to hope GOP primary voters aren't very bright.

* In Michigan's 1st congressional district, Dan Benishek has won a congressional Republican primary by just 15 votes. His opponent, state Sen. Jason Allen, could have requested a recount, but instead conceded the race yesterday.

* The death of a professional wrestler has brought the issue of steroid abuse back to the fore in Linda McMahon's (R) Senate campaign in Connecticut.

* Speaking of Connecticut, if you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, the pollster shows Dan Malloy (D) leading Tom Foley (R) in this year's open gubernatorial race, 48% to 33%.

* In Pennsylvania, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows former right-wing Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Rep. Joe Sestak (D) in this year's Senate race, 45% to 36%.

* Just in time for the midterms, Daily Kos is launching an email activism effort, which will be managed by Chris Bowers.

* And in case there were any doubts, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is "absolutely" running for re-election in 2011.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN THE RIGHT WANTS TO FOLLOW THE COMMUNISTS' LEAD.... In National Review, J.D. Foster makes the case that China is setting a fine economic model to be emulated. (via Isaac Chotiner)

Oh, what a little freedom can do. Government figures released over the weekend confirm that China now has the second-largest economy in the world...[G]iven the direction the U.S. is heading, there's a more immediate, more important issue: what China learned -- and the U.S. apparently forgot -- about the power of freedom.

While China has been economic freedom's new, albeit imperfect laboratory, personal economic freedom in the United States is being slowly strangled by the state. More spending, more regulations, more rules, and, soon, the Obama tax hikes all contribute to a loss of individual freedoms and, collectively, to an economy bearing a much closer resemblance to floundering Japan than rising China.

Where economic freedom expands, growth follows. Where economic freedom is stifled, economies stagnate. Sadly, China's former leaders understood this better than do its current leaders, or America's.

This follows on the heels of disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich telling the Young Americans for Freedom that the Democratic agenda is really just a secret "socialist" plot. He added, "You want to create jobs as rapidly as China? The Chinese pay zero capital-gains tax. If we had zero capital-gains tax in the United States ... we'd be dramatically better off."

As Jon Stewart explained, "So that's the Republican plan -- to fight socialism, we must become communists."

Also note, as part of an ongoing look at the standards for international comparisons, maybe the right can put together a list for us of countries we're allowed to reference. If the left suggests the U.S. pursue a public policy that's worked in, say, Germany, conservatives respond, "They're trying to turn us into Europe!"

But when Gingrich encourages us to follow China's lead, no one argues, "They're trying to turn us into a communist powerhouse!" Just as when Sharron Angle praises Pincohet's privatization scheme and suggests we emulate it here, no one seems inclined to argue, "Republicans are trying to turn us into a South American military dictatorship!"

Update: An emailer reminds me that Newt also wants the U.S. to follow the Saudis' lead on religious liberty. I guess that means, "Republicans are trying to turn us into a Middle Eastern theocracy!"

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

AT LEAST SOME POLITICS IS LOCAL.... Last month, Details ran an interview with Rand Paul, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, which generated some attention. In particular, Paul lauded mountain-top removal as a great idea that just needs a little rebranding.

But in the same interview, Paul said something else of interest. The reporter asked about the significance of Harlan County, Kentucky. "I don't know," the candidate replied. Noting that the town of Hazard is nearby, Paul added, "It's famous for, like, The Dukes of Hazzard." When an aide tries to steer him towards the truth -- Harlan County was home to generations of deadly labor disputes -- Paul ignores him, and says, "Maybe the feuding."

It was a reminder that Rand Paul wants to go Washington to represent Kentucky, but as the Lexington Herald-Leader's Larry Dale Keeling noted the other day, Paul "seems to know dangerously little" about the state.

People who "live" somewhere for 17 years will pick up a little knowledge through osmosis even if they don't bother to get out and learn about their surroundings. A person who merely "resides" somewhere is more like the little knickknack that "resides" in the bric-a-brac case hanging on the wall.

A person who has "lived" in Kentucky for 17 years might know how "Bloody Harlan" got its name and that The Dukes of Hazzard was set in the fictional Hazzard (two Z's) County, Georgia, not the Kentucky city of Hazard (one Z).

A person who has "lived" in Kentucky for 17 years might know the community of Fancy Farm is in a dry county and the picnic put on annually by the old folks of St. Jerome Parish is a family affair where no one has to worry about having beer or anything else thrown at them.

Those are just a few items someone who has lived here for several years might know. But there are some things a person who has lived in this state for any amount of time can't help but know.

Adding insult to injury, Paul has also said Eastern Kentucky's drug problem is not "a real pressing issue," despite the fact that it's been ravaged by an epidemic. Keeling explained, "Only someone who is totally clueless would say that, or suggest that Eastern Kentucky's drug epidemic can be cured at the local level without any federal help." (The columnist added that Paul may have been paying a little too much "homage to Aqua Buddha.")

It's worth emphasizing that people run for office in adopted-home states all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. George W. Bush was a popular Texas governor, despite having been born in Connecticut. Howard Dean was a popular Vermont governor, despite being from New York. Rand Paul is capable of serving Kentucky after having moved there as an adult.

But it's awfully unusual for a novice to run for the United States Senate, despite never having served in government at any level, and neglect to read up on the state he hopes to represent.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

CHRISTIE TAKES ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK.... There have been several prominent Republican voices who've been willing to express support for the Park51 project in lower Manhattan -- including several officials from the Bush White House -- but scarcely any who are current office-holders.

It's why it was encouraging, at least initially, to see New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) urge his party to be cautious about its anti-Islam campaign. Christie didn't defend the First Amendment, or endorse the community center's construction, or really comment at all on the dispute itself, but the governor urged his party not to "overreact" and to avoid painting "all of Islam" with "a brush of radical Muslim extremists."

Under the circumstances, that's a reasonably encouraging line for a GOP official to take. It's not quite the stuff of a "Profile in Courage" award, but given the toxic environment, I'm willing to give Christie at least some credit.

Or, I was, right up until I saw what else Christie said.

"[W]hat offends me the most about all this, is that it's being used as a political football by both parties. And what disturbs me about the president's remarks is that he is now using it as a political football as well. I think the president of the United States should rise above that. And should not be using this as a political football, and I don't believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as all of them."

Christie said he agrees that some degree of "deference" must be paid to victims' relatives, but added, "But it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans. But beyond that ... I am not going to get into it, because I would be guilty of candidly what I think some Republicans are guilty of, and the president is now, the president is guilty of, of playing politics with this issue, and I simply am not going to do it."

I've read this a few times, and I'm still not sure what on earth Chris Christie is talking about.

The issue is being "used as a political football by both parties"? Maybe Christie doesn't know what a "political football" is, but I haven't heard any Democrats running around trying to exploit Republican intolerance for partisan gain. Putting a pox on both houses is a sure-fire way to get political reporters to swoon and gush, but Christie's criticism of Dems has no basis in reality. They're the ones generally trying to avoid this subject like the plague.

President Obama is "guilty" of "playing politics with this issue"? The president was hosting an iftar and endorsed First Amendment principles and American values of religious liberty. One can agree or disagree with the remarks, but Christie thinks the president was wrong to publicly endorse constitutional tenets? It's inappropriate for Obama to say, "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable"? Seriously?

Also note the instances in which Christie, in the midst of remarks about the controversy, goes out of his way to try to distance himself from the controversy. In effect, the governor is saying, "I'm not going to talk about the subject I'm talking about, and I'd like credit for not commenting on a controversy I'm already commenting on."

Christie seems to be playing a silly p.r. game, entering the fray by looking down on those already in the fray, hoping we won't notice. His advice to his party was sound, but he should have quit while he was ahead.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

DROPPING AN ALREADY-THIN PRETENSE.... Try to contain your surprise.

News Corp., which owns Fox News and the New York Post, gave $1 million to Haley Barbour's Republican Governors Association this year, according to the RGA's most recent filing.

The company's media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and the GOP. The company's highest-ranking Democratic executive, Peter Chernin, recently departed.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the company said, "News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA's pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy."

In case you were curious, there were no comparable contributions to Democratic campaign committees. News Corp. has written some modest checks for a few Democratic incumbent lawmakers, but they're of the four-figure variety -- a small fraction of the $1 million check for the Republican Governors Association.

Indeed, the RGA's "biggest corporate donor" happens to be Fox News' corporate parent.

Matt Gertz asks, "Are there still people who doubt that Fox is just an arm of the GOP?"

There shouldn't be.

On a related note, anyone want to lay odds on whether Fox News' on-air broadcasters, reporting on gubernatorial races, disclose that the same company paying their salary is also helping finance the Republican candidate they're covering?

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

THE BARE MINIMUM FOR PUBLIC DISCOURSE.... I noticed the cover story in the last issue of Newsweek had a five-word headline over a photo of 9/11 devastation: "A Mosque at Ground Zero?" Of those five words, four are wrong -- it's not a mosque, and it's not "at" Ground Zero. American news consumers who only casually keep up on current events very likely walked by Newsweek at the check-out aisle and started to form an opinion, unaware that the only accurate word in the headline was "a."

It's a reminder of one of the most painful aspects of our discourse: we're constantly having debates over issues that exist only in the imagination of deceptive conservative hacks, who happen to excel at propaganda. There are, for example, no "death panels." "Terror babies" don't exist. There's no such thing as a "death tax."

And as Keith Olbermann explained well last night, there's no such thing as the "Ground Zero Mosque."

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

I realize that Olbermann's special comments don't resonate with everyone. But even if you don't find his analysis especially compelling, pay particular attention to his description of the facts in the case of Park51 -- it's not at Ground Zero, it's not a mosque, and even characterizing it as two blocks away is generous. The community won't be "in the shadow" of Ground Zero; it won't even be visible from Ground Zero. Hell, developers aren't even calling it the Cordoba House anymore, in the hopes that a more generic name -- Park51 -- will set minds at ease.

Everything about this debate is largely a sham, cooked up by conservatives who hope to pit Americans against each other in advance of an election cycle.

The bare minimum of a sensible, constructive public discourse is a base of reality to build upon. At this point, we're not even close.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

MARRIAGE EQUALITY PUT ON HOLD IN CALIFORNIA.... Two weeks ago, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker declared California's Proposition 8, banning marriage equality in the state, to be unconstitutional. Last week, he lifted a stay, clearing the way for same-sex couples to legally wed as of tomorrow afternoon.

There was always the possibility that the 9th Circuit of Appeals, due to hear the case, would extend a stay as the case proceeds. Late yesterday, the appeals bench did just that.

California's ban on same-sex marriages will remain in place until at least December, an appeals court ruled Monday, dashing the hopes of hundreds of couples who had hoped to wed as soon as Wednesday. [...]

Supporters of the law appealed Walker's finding to the 9th Circuit, and the appeals court ruled Monday that Proposition 8 could remain in effect while it considers the case. It indicated that it will act relatively swiftly on the appeal, setting a hearing for early December -- a schedule that pleased those challenging the measure. But it will not come soon enough for the gay and lesbian couples who were already making plans to exchange vows at city halls around the state this week.

This will, no doubt, be deeply disappointing to couples whose rights are being denied. That said, yesterday's move shouldn't be interpreted as a hint about the eventual outcome -- issuing a stay doesn't mean the appeals bench will reverse the lower court's ruling on the case.

Indeed, the three-judge panel that extended the stay yesterday won't even be the same three-judge panel that will hear the appeal.

One more thing to keep an eye on here. Ben Smith notes that in its order, the 9th Circuit warned that "it's considering dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the appellants -- who don't include the Governor or Attorney General -- lack standing."

Yesterday's order said, "In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing."

Stay tuned.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 16, 2010

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The devastating floods in Pakistan will likely have a painful, lasting impact.

* Defense Secretary Robert Gates mused over retirement while chatting with Fred Kaplan, but despite some news accounts, he didn't exactly announce when he'd step down.

* Over the weekend, President Obama made yet another trip to the Gulf Coast. He heralded the spill-related progress, but assuring locals, "I'm here to tell you that our job is not finished, and we are not going anywhere until it is."

* And yes, he swam in the water.

* Likely to get NATO's attention: "President Hamid Karzai intends to disband all private security companies in Afghanistan within four months, his spokesman said Monday, a timeline that likely will meet with strong resistance from NATO forces who rely heavily on the companies to provide security to convoys and installations across the country."

* On a related note, while Afghan and NATO troops tend to focus on the Taliban threat in the south and east, insurgents are making new inroads in northern Afghanistan.

* An exceedingly rare occurrence on health care costs: "For the first time in 35 years, the one sector of the economy always guaranteed to get more expensive suddenly became a bit cheaper in July."

* The six-year Justice Department investigation into disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has ended, though state criminal charges are still pending.

* Ella: "The Food and Drug Administration approved a controversial new form of emergency contraception Friday that can prevent a pregnancy as many as five days after sex."

* China is poised to overtake Japan as the world's second largest economy.

* What for-profit schools do well.

* On a related note, if Republicans took seriously the notion of getting health care costs under control, they'd love the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Unfortunately, Republicans don't take seriously the notion of getting health care costs under control.

* Great Maddow segment on Social Security (and not just because I'm quoted towards the end).

* Veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins was asked yesterday whether Republicans should "do something" about their ridiculous party chairman, Michael Steele. While Rollins said there's no time for a change, he conceded, "Obviously, he's been a disaster." I have a hunch Democrats would disagree.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

REID CAVES TO PRESSURE ON CORDOBA HOUSE.... When President Obama bucked public opinion and delivered a strong endorsement of the First Amendment on Friday night, it took the dispute over the Cordoba House proposal to a new level. There was no political upside for the president -- conservatives only celebrate constitutional principles when they approve of those being protected -- which made it all the more admirable when he did the right thing.

It's safe to say the president's party was less impressed. While Democratic candidates, already worried about public attitudes less than three months before the midterm elections, could push off the controversy by dismissing it as a "local matter," Obama's remarks made dodging more difficult. Instead of reporters asking whether they support allowing Americans to build a community center in lower Manhattan, now reporters are asking whether they agree with the president.

In the case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he doesn't.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is breaking ranks with President Obama over the issue of the proposed construction of a controversial Islamic center and mosque just blocks away from Ground Zero.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement. "Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place [sic] else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation."

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised -- courageous stands are rarely rewarded by voters in competitive contests -- but it's nevertheless disappointing to see Reid make the wrong call. It's disappointing because I'm all but certain Reid doesn't actually believe this. As a member of a religious minority himself, Reid knows better. He has to.

Indeed, notice that Reid's statement made no effort to explain why the former Burlington Coat Factory store is an inappropriate location for a community center, or how many blocks away from Ground Zero would be satisfactory. There's a very good reason for that -- the stand against religious liberty for Muslim Americans may be popular, but it's very hard to defend.

It's worth emphasizing that Reid agrees that the First Amendment "protects freedom of religion." This matters to the extent that the statement effectively concedes the legal reality -- like it or not, the law is the law, and the religious rights of Americans are still protected. In other words, Reid is effectively saying, "They can build the community center, but they shouldn't."

In a case like this, the concession doesn't amount to much. Reid is still wrong.

As is usually the case, Republicans responded to Reid's effort to prevent political attacks by attacking him anyway. If he was going to get slammed either way, Reid probably should have just done the right thing and stood up for the American values he knows are worth fighting for.

Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share

THE GOP'S NEW SCHOOL-TEACHER CONSPIRACY.... Last week, the House returned from its recess to approve a key state-aide jobs bill. The move was good policy and good politics -- it included $10 billion to save as many as 160,000 school teachers' jobs, and $16.1 billion in state Medicaid funding (FMAP), all in a package that doesn't add a dime to the deficit.

Republican opposition was nevertheless nearly unanimous. Though the basis for the hostility was a little vague -- apparently, if Dems are for it, Republicans are against it -- congressional Republicans labeled school teachers, firefighters, and police officers whose jobs were on the line as "special interests," unworthy of rescue.

Soon after, the more hysterical wing of the party went further. As Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Sharron Angle (R-Nev.) saw it, the state-aid jobs bill was actually an elaborate scheme to take tax-dollars, make sure the funds were "laundered through the public employee unions," and then use the money to help Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.

Today, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) joined the conspiracy caucus.

"Much of those checks that will be distributed will have an automatic deduction in them that will transfer some of that money into the coffers of the unions and their political action money will go into the campaign accounts of 95 percent Democrats. This is a blatant money-laundering scheme that's cooked up by Nancy Pelosi."

See the conspiracy? School teachers, instead of being laid off, will continue to teach kids. When they get paid for their work, they're likely to pay dues to a union. The union will, in turn, pool those dues and spend some of the resources in support of allied political candidates. And some of those candidates will likely be Democrats.

Ergo, Democrats weren't saving jobs and helping schools -- that's just what they want you to think -- but rather, were hatching a devious money-laundering scheme. How clever!

Of course, the implications of such a fiendish plot have broad applicability. As Eric Kleefeld asked, "Could the same logic be applied to government spending on wars and military contractors under Republican administrations?"

In the larger context, it's actually helpful to Democrats that Republicans are still complaining about the jobs bill, because the more attention the effort receives, the better it is for the party that supported it. This was, after all, a popular, common-sense package -- which lowered, not raised, the deficit -- to save middle-class jobs. Voters can be fickle and unpredictable at times, but most folks tend to like school teachers, firefighters, and police officers.

As we talked about last week, the campaign ads seem to write themselves. Indeed, this is a debate to build an election around -- with a struggling economy, Democrats proposed a fiscally-responsible plan to save hundreds of thousands of jobs, specifically helping our local schools. Republicans said we can afford tax cuts for billionaires, but not teachers' jobs.

It's not every day the two parties' approaches to government get spelled out so clearly, giving the public a stark choice between two very different ideologies.

Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

SO MUCH FOR OUTREACH.... In a good piece over the weekend, Politico's Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman noted the ways in which the Republican Party, post-Bush, has dropped the pretense and become deliberately hostile towards the entire faith tradition of Islam, even Muslim Americans. It seems hard to remember, but there was once an "active courtship of Muslim voters" by the Republican Party -- before and after 9/11.

It's probably fair to say that courtship is over.

Sam Stein reports today on Muslim and Arab-American Republicans who are "working behind the scenes to try and tone down their own party's rhetoric."

Organized informally, the group includes officials who served in the Bush administration or have strong ties to GOP leadership. Their concerns are twofold: that there is something fundamentally unconstitutional about opposing the Islamic cultural center and that the tenor of conservatives risks alienating the Muslim and Arab communities (both domestic and abroad) for years to come.

"People like myself... who are hardcore Republicans and have been activists for years, with undoubted credentials on the Republican side, are really outraged by what is going on," said David Ramadan, a prominent Muslim-American conservative operative and a member of the Virginia delegation to the Republican National Convention. "We believe first and foremost in the Constitution. This is not a matter of this mosque or that mosque. This is not a New York mosque issue. It is a Constitutional issue.... This is absolutely unacceptable."

With close ties to both Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell national Republicans, Ramadan said that he and others will launch an outreach campaign in the days ahead targeting key leaders, from members of Congress on down. The hope is to bring the GOP closer in line with the position it held during the Bush years, when Islam was defined first and foremost as a religion of peace.

By all appearances, those days are gone, and are unlikely to return.

Reading the piece, which is worth checking out in full, I was reminded of similar reports earlier this year about prominent Hispanic Americans in the Republican Party who were equally incensed about the direction of their party, as GOP leaders and candidates became increasingly anti-immigrant. It seems likely that prominent African Americans in the Republican Party have been similarly concerned with the party's race-based politicking of late.

The larger truth is that when Republicans get anxious in an election season, their first instinct is to play games with identity politics. It's a calculated divisiveness -- the GOP will lose the Muslim-American conservatives Bush brought into the party, but it's a small price to pay for boosting turnout from the rest of the party base.

Long term, as the United States gets more diverse, this is still a losing proposition. For now, Republicans don't seem to care.

Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

CAMPAIGN INVESTMENTS THAT CAN CHANGE THE CYCLE.... When looking ahead to the midterms, it's not uncommon to compare Democratic finances to Republican finances. Money isn't always the deciding factor, but the edge the Democratic campaign committees have over their Republican counterparts may give the appearance of an advantage.

It's worth emphasizing, then, that comparing the parties' cash on hand leaves out a key consideration -- outside groups that are planning to spend heavily, usually attacking Democrats. The L.A. Times had this report today, for example.

A conservative advocacy group Monday will kick off a huge ad campaign in 11 states and two dozen of the most competitive congressional races, slamming "wasteful federal spending."

The $4.1-million ad buy from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation does not mention individual candidates in the November election. The script attacks Washington policies, describing the economic stimulus program as a failure and declaring that "wasteful spending must stop."

The ads -- part of a midterm election likely to be the most expensive on record -- will run in 27 media markets through August. Democrats hold all but one of the 24 House seats in question, including 17 incumbents seeking reelection.

The television buys are in Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. Several of those, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri, also have tight Senate races. The group is expected to continue funding ad buys throughout the fall and across the country.

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) described it as "the biggest ad buy I am aware of this summer." The financing is secret, but the ads are believed to be financed, at least in part, by wealthy right-wing activist David Koch.

Voters seeing the ads won't know who's paying for them, or what the sponsoring group is all about, or whether there's any merit to the arguments. But a $4.1-million ad buy is going to get noticed, and it's going to affect public opinion.

What's more, voters should expect to see a lot more of these efforts over the next 77 days, with business groups gearing up to crush as many Democratic candidates as possible.

The latest blatant signs of hostility come from coal executives who are considering starting up their own political operation to work against candidates they deem unfriendly to their interests. Their first three targets are all Democrats.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already vowed to invest $75 million in the mid-term elections. And health insurers are also planning to play big in November, although the specifics remain in flux.

And all of this, of course, comes on the heels of Karl Rove's American Crossroads operations, which is poised to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars just on the midterms.

Democratic House candidates may currently enjoy a 2-to-1 edge in cash on hand over Republicans, but once corporate, post-Citizens United money is factored into the equation, the advantage quickly disappears.

Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

DEFENDING WORKERS' 'WAY OF LIFE,' BUT NOT THEIR SAFETY.... Rand Paul (R) continues to hope voters just aren't paying attention. I guess he doesn't have much of a choice -- a more informed public lowers his odds of success -- but this is just embarrassing.

Rand Paul came out swinging against the Environmental Protection Agency this weekend, arguing that President Obama is "forcing the EPA down our throats."

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Paul held a rally in a Kentucky coalfield on Saturday. Paul took the opportunity to position himself as an ally of coal workers (a key constituency in Kentucky, where Paul is running for Senate), arguing he would "defend your way of life."

For crying out loud. Just a few weeks ago, Paul, the extremist Senate candidate and political novice, explained that he rejects the notion of safety regulations to protect mine workers. It's better, he said, to let the free market deal with the problem.

As Paul envisions the system working, just so long as everyone honors the free market above all, "no one will apply for those jobs" if a mine's operators don't do a good job protecting worker safety.

Tony Oppegard, a Kentucky attorney and mine-safety advocate, called Paul's statement "idiotic." He added that underground mines already offer dangerous working conditions, and if Paul successfully eliminated safety mandates, "there would be a bloodbath," he said.

As for the notion that coal-mine workers would just get jobs somewhere else if they weren't satisfied with the safety precautions, Oppegard concluded, "There's no other job opportunities."

It was a reminder that Rand Paul has a nice little worldview, shaped by a bizarre, inflexible libertarianism. And in this little world Paul has created in his mind, everything should work as he envisions -- the free market can and should dictate safety regulations at coal mines. If employers don't look out for their workers, those employers won't have applicants for job openings, which means less business, less profit, etc.

And while Rand Paul's nice little vision is just delightful in an Ayn Rand novel, it's contradicted by everything we know and have seen about reality. Indeed, how does the Republican Senate hopeful explain the nightmarish conditions miners faced before federal safety regulations? Shouldn't the free market have prevented such a disastrous set of circumstances and prevented the dangerous exploitation of desperate workers?

Now we see Paul positioning himself as an ally of coal workers. Please.

Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

GINGRICH KEEPS GODWIN'S LAW INTACT.... About a month ago, when he first started campaigning against the Cordoba House, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) insisted the United States should follow Saudi Arabia's lead when it comes to religious liberty.

That argument didn't prove especially persuasive, so on Fox & Friends this morning, the scandal-plagued, pseudo-intellectual Georgian took his hysteria slightly further, comparing American Muslims to Nazis.

Gingrich insisted, without proof, that the cultural center's leaders are "radical Islamists" who intend to demonstrate that "they can build a mosque next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by Islamists." (The former Burlington Coat Factory store is not, in reality, "next to" Ground Zero.)

He added, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington."

We're well into the realm of farce at this point, and Gingrich seems to be playing a little game with the media establishment -- let's see just how ridiculous he can be on national television, but still be treated as a "serious" person, and still be invited back.

Of course, there are no limits for conservatives, so it's a game Gingrich is bound to win. Ideally, sensible people would think, "Wow, ol' Newt just compared a community center at a former clothing store to the Nazis. He must be insane."

But that never seems to happen, so Gingrich will continue to spew his garbage.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share

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 Kansas, Republican congressional candidate Mike Pompeo directed his supporters late last week to an online item calling his Democratic opponent, Raj Goyle, "just another 'turban topper.'" The same piece said only Christians should hold public office. Pompeo's campaign later apologized.

* Rep. Joe Sestak's (D) Senate campaign in Pennsylvania got a boost today with an endorsement from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I).

* In Florida's GOP gubernatorial primary, some recent polls showed Rick Scott falling behind Bill McCollum, but the latest Ipsos poll shows the disgraced former health care executive out in front, 42% to 32%.

* On a related note, the winner of the GOP primary will face Florida CFO Alex Sink (D), who has a new ad making fun for Scott and McCollum for their constant bickering.

* In Colorado, where Dan Maes managed to somehow win the Republican gubernatorial primary, some state GOP leaders still hope to convince him to just go away. It seems unlikely they'll succeed.

* In Nevada, Brian Sandoval (R) continues to lead this year's gubernatorial race over Rory Reid (D), with the latest Mason-Dixon poll showing him ahead, 52% to 36%.

* A number of Massachusetts Democrats hope to persuade Vicky Kennedy, Ted Kennedy's widow, to challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R) when he seeks re-election. At this point, she seems unlikely to run.

* And if you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, the pollster finds former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton (D) leading Minnesota's gubernatorial race, topping state Rep. Tom Emmer (R), 45% to 36%.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share

ANGLE EYES UNITED NATIONS FOR ELIMINATION, TOO.... Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, is already well known for wanting to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and several cabinet agencies. But don't forget, she has her eyes on Turtle Bay, too.

The United Nations resides on our soil and costs us money. We are -- I don't see any place in the Constitution -- in those eight priorities -- about the United Nations. So when we start talking about cutting programs, 5% per year, I think the United Nations fits into that category, yes."

Obviously, Angle is stark raving mad, so it's silly to expect her to know what she's talking about. But the Constitution offers the government the ability to enter into treaties and alliances. It's actually pretty basic stuff. The words "United Nations" obviously don't appear in the Constitution, because, much like the words "Air Force," "Federal Highway System," and "Nevada," no one had come up with the idea in the late 18th century

Of course, by Angle's twisted logic, practically all of the federal government would have to be eliminated.

Which is almost certainly the point.

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

KRISTOL FINDS FAULT WITH 'TRAUMA'.... On Friday night, when President Obama defended our First American principles while hosting a White House iftar, he initially noted that we must "recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan." Obama added, "The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground."

The president went on to explain, however, that he believes Muslim Americans "have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country... This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."

Plenty has been said about the latter part of this sentiment. But leave it to Bill Kristol to find fault with the former.

For Obama, 9/11 was a "deeply traumatic event for our country." Traumatic events invite characteristic reactions and over-reactions -- fearfulness, anger, even hysteria. That's how Obama understands the source of objections to the Ground Zero mosque. It's all emotional. The arguments don't have to be taken seriously. The criticisms of the mosque are the emotional reactions of a traumatized people.

But Americans aren't traumatized.... Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn't feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque -- because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.

Kristol liked this line of thinking so much, he repeated it on Fox News yesterday.

Now, Kristol long ago abandoned the pretense of seriousness or intellectual honesty, so it's hardly worth nothing how deeply deceptive his criticism is. But I would point the selective outrage on display. Kristol's whine is predicated on the notion that "deeply traumatic" was the wrong characterization. It's evidence that the president is, I don't know, bad or something.

But Steve M. took the next logical step -- he found several examples of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their team describing the 9/11 attacks as, you guessed it, "traumatic."

I can't find any evidence of Kristol complaining about it at the time.

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

DON'T FOLLOW THE TERRORISTS' SCRIPT.... Michael Daly had a poignant item in the New York Daily News yesterday, reflecting on his friendship with five FDNY friends, four of whom perished on Sept. 11, 2001. The fifth, Tim Brown, somehow managed to survive after saving lives in the south tower, and filed suit to prevent the construction of the Cordoba House a couple of blocks away.

As much as Daly loves Brown, and wishes he did "not so strongly disagree with him," he concludes that Americans must not give in to "what the terrorists want." (via Peter Daou)

Nobody could sway me more than Tim when it comes to Ground Zero. But I cannot help feeling that if we block this mosque we will not only be doing what Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh want, we will also be doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants. [...]

We are only helping the bad guys if we declare that the religious freedom at the core of our democracy does not apply to a mosque too close to Ground Zero.

Maybe it is my own anger at the murder of my friends that gives me such a visceral reaction against doing what it seems clear the killers want us to do.

This observation is important, and I'm glad to see that it's coming up with increasing frequency. This morning, Mark McKinnon, a former strategist for George W. Bush, said of his own party, "Usually Republicans are forthright in defending the Constitution. And here we are, reinforcing al Qaeda's message that we're at war with Muslims.... I see a bad pattern where we're headed as a Republican Party."

Michael Gerson, Bush's former chief speechwriter, added today, "Those who want a president to assert that any mosque would defile the neighborhood near Ground Zero are asking him to undermine the war on terrorism."

William Saletan noted the ways in which leading Republicans have become allies of Osama bin Laden's propaganda campaign. Jeffrey Goldberg also explained two weeks ago: "I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country."

Clearly, the vast majority of the GOP, and most of the American public, doesn't want to hear this. It's easier to believe that Muslim Americans are all dangerous (they're not) and now they're trying to build a mosque at Ground Zero (which isn't true, either).

But if critics would just pause to catch their breath and consider reason, they'd see there's no value in helping bin Laden's dangerous scheme.

Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

CORKER PUSHES THE CASE FOR DOING NOTHING.... As the economic recovery, such as it is, continues to look increasingly fragile, and economic anxiety grows, there are many who hope policymakers will be spurred into action. Republicans don't quite see it that way.

The GOP line continues to annoy. As the congressional minority sees it, the problem with the economy isn't the jobs crisis or businesses who don't have enough customers, but rather, "economic uncertainty." It's the Obama administration, the argument goes, that has made employers pull back, though a combination of passing health care reform, new safeguards for Wall Street, new consumer-protection regulations, etc.

The problem with the pitch is that it's unsupported by reality. As Ezra Klein noted the other day, "[T]hough I keep hearing about how policy uncertainty is holding us back, I still haven't heard, or been able to generate, any compelling data to support that argument."

But the argument won't go away. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), riffing off the uncertainty argument, said yesterday that the economy will improve if policymakers do nothing.

"The best thing we can do is calm down," he told ABC's "This Week," adding, "I sat down with a business this week -- I'll give you an example -- and they're looking at the healthcare bill, and they're trying to decide, should they keep people under 30 hours? Smaller businesses are saying, should we stay under 25?"

Corker went on to argue that if we just leave the Bush/Cheney tax rates in place for millionaires and billionaires, we'll all be better off. Given that the Bush/Cheney tax rates never generated the kind of prosperity and job growth that Republicans promised, it's hardly a compelling case.

But Corker's point about health care undermining employment is especially odd. The Affordable Care Act passed in March, and in April, we saw the highest private-sector job growth in several years. The month after health care reform passed Congress, the Dow Jones went up 500 points. I'm not saying there's a cause-and-effect connection here, but if the new health care law generated counter-productive "uncertainty," these improvements probably wouldn't have occurred.

Corker would have us believe that everything will get better if policymakers just sit on their hands. I have no idea why anyone would take this seriously.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

HALPERIN'S ADVICE PREDICATED ON DECENCY (WHICH MAY NOT EXIST).... For months, the Republican message has been vague but focused -- the economy matters more than everything else. The GOP doesn't necessarily have an economic agenda, or credible ideas on how to improve the economy, or even an explanation as to why they want to go back to the some policies that got us in this mess in the first place, but the focus is still there.

That may be changing. Republicans have seized on a plan to convert a shut-down clothing store into a community center in lower Manhattan, believing the plan can help pit Americans against each other and give the GOP a boost in the midterm elections. President Obama's spirited defense on Friday of the First Amendment and the American tradition of religious liberty has made Republicans even more anxious to embrace demagoguery for electoral gain.

Time's Mark Halperin published a letter to the Republican Party, acknowledging the "political potency" of the issue, and taking note of the fact that the president's support for American principles puts him at odds with public opinion. Halperin concludes, however, that it would be in America's interests for Republicans to show restraint.

Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.

But please don't do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now -- the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric -- is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.

It isn't clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama's measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner -- the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.

As I said, Republicans, this is your moment. As a famous New Yorker once urged in a very different context: Do the right thing.

This is excellent, thoughtful advice. It asks Republicans to look past the short-term gratification that demagoguery offers, and consider what's best for the country and our broader interests.

What Halperin wants, in other words, is for Republicans to demonstrate some decency and respect for American values. I would very much like to think this is still possible, but the party has offered no credible reason to believe it has the necessary strength of character.

I would genuinely love to be proven wrong, but waiting for GOP integrity invariably leads to crushing disappointment.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

PETRAEUS SUBTLY POINTS A FINGER.... Gen. David Petraeus, hoping to change public attitudes about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, has spent some time with major media outlets -- the New York Times, "Meet the Press," the Washington Post -- as part of an apparent p.r. campaign. The general, not surprisingly, believes the current policy, announced eight months ago, will pay dividends and succeed in time.

What I did find at least a little surprising was Petraeus' willingness to join the Obama White House in subtly blaming the failures of the Bush/Cheney era for many of our current predicaments.

U.S. military leaders inherited a faulty strategy for the war in Afghanistan at the end of the Bush administration and are still working to "refine the concepts," the U.S. commander said in an interview airing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

In his first interview since taking over as head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus told NBC's David Gregory that when "a lot of us came out of Iraq in late 2008 and started looking intently at Afghanistan, we realized that we did not have the organizations that are required for the conduct and the comprehensive civil/military counterinsurgency campaign."

In the interview, which was conducted last week in Kabul and aired Sunday, Petraeus did not specifically criticize former President George W. Bush, who promoted him to head of U.S. Central Command in April 2008. But the timetable he described left little doubt that he believed the Bush administration inadequately laid the groundwork for integrating Afghan leaders into the allied military structure.

"Over the last 18 months or so" -- Bush left the White House 18 months ago -- "what we've sought to do in Afghanistan is to get the inputs right for the first time," Petraeus said.

When President Obama unveiled the new U.S. policy in Afghanistan in early December, he called out his immediate predecessor for pursuing a failed policy for so long. By 2003, "al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope."

But, Obama noted, then Bush decided to invade Iraq, diverting troops, resources, diplomacy, and national attention from Afghanistan, which precipitated deteriorating conditions and the reemergence of the Taliban. The president implicitly left no doubt about that Bush's tragic misjudgments made an awful situation much more difficult.

At the time, the right responded the way it always responds -- by insisting that it's wrong to blame Bush, even when Bush deserves blame. But now that Petraeus is making a similar case, will conservatives complain about him, too?

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 15, 2010

CORNYN SHOULD TRY TO KEEP UP WITH CURRENT EVENTS.... At a certain level, it's still hard to fathom why the Cordoba House is so controversial. A Burlington Coat Factory store closed down; a local religious leader wants to build a community center at the location. This isn't especially interesting.

At least, it shouldn't be.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) argued today on Fox News that his party, without a policy agenda or substantive ideas about the future, intends to pit Americans against each other over this issue during the campaign season.

"This is not about freedom of religion," Cornyn said. "I do think it's unwise to build a mosque in the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack."

First, saying it's "not about freedom of religion" doesn't make it so. When the right organizes to prevent a Muslim American from converting a clothing store into a community center, solely because Muslims will pray there, it's quite obviously about freedom of religion.

Second, Cornyn helps pinpoint the basis for conservative opposition: he believes it's "unwise" to "build a mosque in the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack."

No wonder Republicans are so upset -- they have no idea what they're talking about. If someone proposed building a house of worship for a specific faith group "in the site where" 9/11 occurred, I'd oppose it, too.

And while one would hope John Cornyn, never the sharpest crayon in the box, would understand the basics before going on television to talk about a divisive issue, now is as good a time as any to help him understand current events. Let's make this easy for him: no one is talking about building a mosque at Ground Zero. The proposal calls for converting an old Burlington Coat Factory into a community center, a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero.

I'm sure the conservative senator will want to apologize for his mistake, so the public isn't left with the wrong idea. In fact, Cornyn, who'll no doubt be embarrassed by his confusion, should probably let his Republican allies know. Once the right understands that there's no plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero, the whole dispute should fade away.

Right?

Steve Benen 11:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (55)

Bookmark and Share

HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTERS.... It's occasionally helpful to be reminded why I stopped reading far-right blogs.

A fairly prominent site called Right Wing News sent out a questionnaire to more than 100 leading conservative blogs, asking who they considered the worst Americans to ever live. It's not exactly an easy exercise -- coming up with American heroes is considerably easier -- but the results ranking the top 25 offer an interesting look at the perspectives of some of the right's most notable bloggers. (via Ron Chusid)

Bill Clinton tied for 23rd, alongside Hillary Clinton. Filmmaker Michael Moore tied for 19th, as did Al Sharpton. Actress Jane Fonda was 13th, along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. John Wilkes Booth came in 11th and Timothy McVeigh was 9th, but both murderers ranked below Ted Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

The top three: (3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, (2) Barack Obama, and (1) Jimmy Carter. Yep, these three are, according to the right-wing bloggers who participated in the unscientific survey, the single worst Americans to ever live.

Rick Moran, himself a conservative blogger, wrote in response:

Frankly, this is embarrassing. Putting the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Sharpton, and other contemporary Democrats ahead of someone like Nathan Bedford Forest who was at least partly responsible for creating the KKK after the Civil War and spent his spare nights riding around the countryside whipping, lynching, and burning at the stake innocent African Americans demonstrates an extraordinary ignorance of American history.

James Joyner, another conservative writer, described the top 25 list as "bizarre."

Also note, in case it's not clear, the exercise appears to be entirely sincere. Every weeknight, Keith Olbermann names the "worst person in the world," but there's a tongue-in-cheek quality to the segment -- the music, the audio effects, the exaggerated speech are all intended to suggest that Olbermann does not literally consider his targets the single worst human beings on the planet.

The Right Wing News survey, however, was a serious attempt to identify the worst the United States has to offer -- the worst the United States has ever offered.

The results say far more about conservative bloggers than the finalists on the list.

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (69)

Bookmark and Share

ENSIGN HOPES HIS SUPPORTERS ARE EASILY FOOLED.... Major media outlets continue to give him a pass, but the ongoing FBI investigation into Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) took an interesting turn recently when the scandal-plagued Republican started begging for cash for his legal defense fund.

Ensign, at the center of a humiliating sex/corruption/ethics scandal, registered his legal defense fund as a tax-exempt 527 political organization, which itself was a bizarre move. But this week, the right-wing senator sent out his first appeal to help pay his legal bills, acknowledging his adultery, but denying corruption allegations that appear to be plainly true.

Nevada journalist Jon Ralston described the appeal as "galling," adding that by sending the letter, Ensign "showed that not only does he lack self-awareness, but he thinks most people who receive the letter are ignoramuses."

That mistake -- this is just about sex! -- did not lead to a "difficult legal battle." Ensign is in legal jeopardy not because he slept with his wife's best friend and his best friend's wife — that never sounds less grotesque, does it? -- but because of how he tried to cover it up, pay off the couple through Mom and Dad and then try to hush up the cuckolded husband by importuning people he regulates to hire him.

The vast majority of people, I think, would forgive Ensign for weakness of the flesh -- the social conservative base he pandered to, notwithstanding. But his manipulation of the lives of Cindy and Doug Hampton and his shameful attempt to play the victim now have outraged many who might have been forgiving.

As for "being accused of things I absolutely did not do," I ask: Really? Do tell. All we've heard is "no comment" for more than a year. What is there in the past that should induce us to believe him?

Also note, instead of taking responsibilities for his own outrageous behavior, Ensign blamed his legal difficulties on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which the far-right senator dismissed as a "liberal organization" going after him without cause.

CREW's Melanie Sloan responded, "Senator Ensign had an extended affair with a campaign staffer, who happened to be married to his chief of staff Doug Hampton, fired them both, and had his parents pay them off without properly reporting it to the Federal Election Commission. He then conspired to help Mr. Hampton to set up a lobbying business to lobby his own office, in violation of federal law. So what exactly are the things that Senator Ensign is being accused of that he did not do?"

What a good question.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

A 'ROADMAP' TO GUTTING MEDICARE.... This was the week I started getting a little tired of the media's interest in Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) -- the NYT ran yet another profile on Thursday -- but I suppose it's worth noting that the far-right lawmaker had an op-ed in the Washington Post the other day on Medicare.

For context, keep in mind that Republican rhetoric on the seniors' health care program has been hard to grasp. For many years, the GOP goal was to cut Medicare. When Democrats proposed cost-saving measures in the same program as part of health care reform, Republicans pretended to be outraged that Dems would try to cut Medicare.

Soon after, Ryan, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee and the media's new conservative darling, unveiled his budget "roadmap," complete with deep cuts to Medicare. It this strikes you as an incoherent message, then we're on the same page.

This month, however, we learned that the savings from the Affordable Care Act will strengthen Medicare by extending the Trust Fund for 12 years. Ryan was unimpressed.

We do not have a choice as to whether Medicare will change from its current structure. It is being driven to insolvency. An honest debate requires a serious discussion of how Medicare will avert its collapse and be made sustainable. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Democrats' political machine has attacked my contribution to this debate, making the false claim that the only solution put forward to save Medicare would "end Medicare as we know it."

I'm not sure why Ryan considers this characterization "false."

Ryan's approach isn't particularly complicated. Under his "roadmap" plan, Medicare funding would be overhauled and replaced -- seniors would get vouchers to purchase coverage from private insurers, offering unregulated, pre-ACA insurance, without the Democrats' consumer protections.

The value of those vouchers would not be designed to keep up with escalating health care costs -- coverage would cost more than the benefits, and seniors on a fixed income would be expected to make up the difference.

Would this "end Medicare as we know it"? That seems more than fair as a description. Stephanie Cutter had a good item on this published at the White House's blog:

The bottom line under the Ryan plan: Costs would continue to rise, the value of benefits provided to seniors would continue to fall, and seniors would be stuck with fewer benefits and bigger bills. And, according to outside analysts, his plan would substantially increase the deficit in the medium-term.

We won't go down Rep. Ryan's road.

I sure hope not.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

KEEPING SOCIAL SECURITY UP FRONT AND CENTER.... Democratic leaders vowed this week to do their level best to make Social Security a campaign issue. That certainly makes sense -- it's a winning issue for Dems.

With that in mind President Obama devoted his weekly address to not only celebrating the 75th anniversary of Social Security becoming law -- FDR signed the legislation on August 14, 1935 -- but to vowing to fight Republican plans to undermine, if not eliminate, the bedrock American program.

After noting the privatization debate of 2005, the president said, "I'd have thought that debate would've been put to rest once and for all by the financial crisis we've just experienced. I'd have thought, after being reminded how quickly the stock market can tumble, after seeing the wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days, that no one would want to place bets with Social Security on Wall Street; that everyone would understand why we need to be prudent about investing the retirement money of tens of millions of Americans.

"But some Republican leaders in Congress don't seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They're pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. It's right up there on their to-do list with repealing some of the Medicare benefits and reforms that are adding at least a dozen years to the fiscal health of Medicare -- the single longest extension in history.

"That agenda is wrong for seniors, it's wrong for America, and I won't let it happen. Not while I'm President. I'll fight with everything I've got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street."

What's the Republicans' defense? That Social Security isn't really on their to-do list: "A spokesman for House Republican leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) accused Obama and the Democrats of dredging up old issues that are no longer valid."

That'd be more persuasive if so many Republicans weren't so anxious to gut Social Security. The leading GOP lawmaker on the House Budget Committee wants to privatize Social Security, and his idea has been endorsed by a wide variety of Republican officials and candidates. In Nevada, Sharron Angle has called for eliminating Social Security altogether, and her position has not be denounced by party leaders.

One high-profile House Republican recently called for the government to "wean everybody" off Social Security. A day later, another House Republican endorsed Social Security privatization. Two days later, yet another House Republican endorsed Social Security privatization.

This isn't ancient history -- it's all happened in 2010.

If Dems were just pointing to a straw man, I'd agree that it wouldn't be fair to make this a campaign issue. But Republicans are the ones actively pushing the notion that Social Security should be gutted and handed over to Wall Street. It seems like the kind of thing voters should be aware of.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

DON'T CALL IT A WALKBACK.... Our discourse is often on a hair-trigger, just waiting for a phrase or a sentiment that can be infused with extraordinary significance. Once in a while, though, this leads to some unnecessary overreactions.

On Friday night, President Obama hosted a White House iftar, and used the occasion to address a dispute that's sparked widespread discussion. Noting the controversy surrounding a proposed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, the president said Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground, but said what really matters in this discussion are the First Amendment principles and American values that we all should hold dear.

"[L]et me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure."

Yesterday, during a visit to the Gulf Coast, the president briefly spoke to CNN, which asked about his Friday night remarks. Obama said what really matters in this discussion are the First Amendment principles and American values that we all should hold dear.

"My intention was to simply let people know what I thought, which was that in this country we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about and I think it's very important, as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."

When some news outlets tried to characterize this as some kind of reversal, the White House said in a statement, "Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night."

But it was apparently too late. The hair-trigger had already been pulled, and talk of a presidential "walkback" was well underway.

This strikes me as excessive. The message on Friday emphasized constitutional principles, religious liberty, and the importance of Americans being treated equally. We have certain rights in this country, and those rights should be celebrated, not cast aside for political expediency.

There's nothing in the remarks from Saturday to undermine that message. There was no walkback.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 14, 2010

TESTING THE LIMITS OF A BOGUS RATIONALIZATION.... The right would have us believe that their hysterical opposition to the Cordoba House in lower Manhattan has nothing to do with religion or bigotry. A few will concede that they just hate certain religious minorities, but in general, high-profile conservatives know transparent bigotry doesn't go over well, so they've rationalized their position.

With that in mind, let's consider some hypothetical scenarios.

If Feisal Abdul Rauf wanted to build a coffee shop at Park51 in lower Manhattan, two blocks from Ground Zero, would anyone even think to care? Would it be the subject of an intense national debate? Would conspicuously unintelligent demagogues refer to it as the "9/11 coffee shop" and/or the "Ground Zero coffee shop"? Would there be an expectation that mainstream Muslim Americans "refudiate" the coffee shop out of sensitivity to the victims of 9/11?

These need not be rhetorical questions, and this isn't intended as some kind of joke.

What if Rauf wanted an up-scale clothing store? Or a Barnes & Noble? Or a place for consumer electronics? Or a nightclub? Would it be the "9/11 nightclub" and/or the "Ground Zero nightclub"?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that no one would care. Local officials responsible for reviewing building plans and zoning regulations would consider the proposal and make a reasoned decision. It'd generate a blurb in the local section of some NYC dailies -- if it even got that much attention.

But Feisal Abdul Rauf doesn't want a coffee shop or a nightclub. He found a location that used to house a Burlington Coat Factory -- not the Twin Towers -- and he wants to build a community center. The building would include a restaurant, a performing arts center, a place for worship, and a swimming pool. You'll notice that "terrorist training facility" is not included in the description.

For those who want to maintain the pretense that this isn't about religious liberty or discriminating against a minority faith, it's time for at least a shred of intellectual honesty. If the Cordoba House were to include a restaurant, a performing arts center, and a swimming pool -- without a place for worship -- would conservatives be so hysterical?

If the answer is "yes," they'd be every bit as incensed, then it's time to acknowledge that those who are whining incessantly about the community center would have to be just as outraged by the notion of Feisal Abdul Rauf's coffee shop. These are folks who, by all appearances, wouldn't want a Muslim American neighbor building anything in lower Manhattan, which is crazy, illegal, and at odds with how we do things in the United States.

If the answer is "no," they wouldn't be every bit as hysterical, and the inclusion of a place for prayer is what serves as a deal-breaker, then it's time to acknowledge that this has everything to do with religious liberty, and a desire to deny First Amendment protections to faith groups the right holds in contempt.

Either way, there's no excuse for such ugly nonsense.

Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (96)

Bookmark and Share

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO PUSH BACK.... It's gone on largely below the radar, but this week we've seen a White House slightly more aggressive than usual in calling out elements of the GOP agenda, and making an assertive case against misguided Republican ideas.

Consider just the past few days. The GOP wants to extend massively expensive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires? The White House pushed back. The GOP wants to scrap economic stimulus? The White House pushed back. The GOP wants to reject religious liberty in lower Manhattan? The White House pushed back. The GOP wants to undermine Social Security with a dangerous privatization scheme? The White House pushed back.

And the GOP wants to repeal at least part of the 14th Amendment? That's getting some pushback, too.

The Obama administration today blasted for Republicans for bringing up the possibility of changing the 14th Amendment while refusing to take part in a discussion about comprehensive immigration reform legislation with Democrats.

"Any talk about amending the Constitution is just wrong," Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said with respect to the immigration debate. Napolitano added she was "surprised, to say the least," that Republicans were raising the idea before coming to the table to talk about amending immigration statutes.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called GOP interest in changing the amendment "rich in its irony [and] wrong in its approach."

"It is always interesting that those that have with steadfast fidelity talked about not tampering with our Constitution have now swerved to pick the 14th Amendment as the best place to address comprehensive immigration reform," he said.

He added that the 14th Amendment enshrines equal protection and due process -- "two things that don't need to be tampered with."

As a substantive matter, it's a shame that basic tenets of American society even need high-profile defenses like these, but as the Republican Party moves even further to the right, it's apparently necessary.

But as a political matter, there's an ongoing drive among Democrats to characterize Republicans as extremists. When the GOP calls for giving the Constitution a little touch up, and repealing a basic tenet of American law, Republicans make the Dems' task a little easier. The pushback is intended to make the case to the public, but it's also intended to remind voters of just how far gone much of the contemporary GOP really is.

Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

SHINING A LIGHT ON A 'SERIOUS SIN'.... When it comes to Sen. David Vitter (R), seeking re-election in Louisiana this year, the question was never whether his humiliating scandals would be a campaign issue. The question was how Democrats would make the case to voters that Vitter's dishonesty and character problems are a key campaign issue.

Yesterday, we got a pretty clear sense of the pitch. Vitter's Democratic opponent, Rep. Charlie Melancon, unveiled one of the season's hardest-hitting ads, shining a light on Vitter's background with prostitutes and hiring an abusive criminal to oversee women's issues for his Senate office. Just as importantly, Melancon's ad ties these scandals to Vitter's votes against equal pay for women workers, against mandatory coverage for mammograms, and against protections for women who are raped on the job.

The closing line is pretty devastating: "David Vitter: for women, his 'serious sin' isn't even his worst.'" It coincides with the Melancon campaign launching a new website: SeriousSins.com.

The ad serves multiple purposes. The obvious goal is to remind voters of Vitter's character problems and poor judgment, especially when it comes to women. Even if voters aren't moved by Vitter running on a family-values platform and then getting caught with prostitutes, this ad connects that scandal to a larger pattern that makes the right-wing senator untrustworthy.

What's more, as Jed Lewison noted, Melancon's larger goal "is to make this election a referendum on Vitter. If he can do that, he actually stands a shot at winning."

I'd add that it's very likely Melancon's only shot at winning. Given Louisiana's political direction in recent years, and the general tilt of the electorate in 2010, Vitter's far-right record and hostility to the middle class probably won't be enough to undermine his re-election bid. The key is to make the case that the senator simply isn't trustworthy -- a case that includes his background cheating on his wife with hookers, but as the ad shows, goes further. If this doesn't undermine Vitter's support, it's very likely nothing will.

In an item yesterday, Chris Cillizza compares this race to Blair Hull's (D) Illinois Senate race in 2002 and Nikki Haley's (R) South Carolina gubernatorial race this year. Neither of these comparisons work for me -- Hull's controversy had to do with a messy divorce, and allegations of Haley's adultery weren't proven, and certainly didn't involve prostitutes.

The more apt comparison may be to former Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R) in Arkansas, who ran for re-election in a Republican state during a very good year for Republicans, but lost after getting caught up in a sex scandal, despite running on a family-values platform.

Granted, Sen. Mark Pryor (D) was running for a seat once held by his father, and Melancon doesn't have those kinds of advantages. But the point is, it's possible.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the latest call from a religious right extremist who, as a celebration of American religion liberty, wants to prevent a major faith group from building houses of worship.

Bryan Fischer, the American Family Association's unofficial spokesman and the group's director of issues analysis, writes some rather incendiary stuff. Like most of the people AFA employs, his main area of expertise (and some might legitimately argue, obsession) is in exposing the so-called "radical homosexual agenda." But Fischer is more than just a less-relevant, grandfatherly version of Tony Perkins. In fact, Fischer's antics put Perkins to shame. For instance, he has advocated stoning killer whales and even blamed bear attacks on an unwillingness to follow in Jesus' footsteps.

Like most far-right Christian zealots, Fischer really hates Muslims. Like a lot. Indeed, as Right Wing Watch notes, "Fischer was hating Muslims long before it was the cool conservative thing to do." In the past, he's suggested that the "most compassionate" thing to do would be to deport all Muslims back to "Muslim countries." He's even managed to fit his two favorite targets into the same conspiracy, theorizing in April that the military is run by "fundamentalist Muslims and homosexual activists." In a post yesterday, Fischer brings us the crazy yet again, this time calling on the government to prohibit mosques from being built anywhere in the United States. Period.

That's not an exaggerated characterization. Fischer argued this week that every single proposed mosque in the United States should be blocked -- not just in lower Manhattan, but every part of American soil. As the AFA nutjob sees it, all Muslim houses of worship, by definition, are "dedicated to the overthrow of the American government," and Muslim Americans "cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment."

Kyle at Right Wing Watch noted that Fischer declined to endorse the destruction of existing U.S. mosques, which apparently would be excessive. "So you can see how reasonable he is," Kyle added.

If you're starting to get the sense that some contingents of the religious right are getting a little too hysterical, we're on the same page.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* In light of the Roman Catholic Church's scandal involving the sexual abuse of children, it's hard to know what the Vatican is thinking: "If Pope Benedict XVI is trying to dig the Catholic Church out of the sex abuse scandal, he only seems to be making the hole deeper. That's the apparent consensus after it was reported that the pope has rejected the resignations of two bishops in Ireland who asked to quit last December after they were named in an independent report for their lack of diligence and action in the country's awful history of the sexual and physical abuse of children by priests." (thanks to reader D.J. for the heads-up)

* Tweeting the Bible may take a long while.

* UCC Minister G. Jeffrey MacDonald laments "the trend toward consumer-driven religion," which pressures pastors into new roles as entertainers.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

SHE'S GETTING WORSE.... Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, is on record wanting to scrap the entire Social Security system. She's spoken public about her desire to see the system "fazed out," and replaced with "something privatized." Angle recently added, "I'm saying it can't be fixed. It's broken."

On Thursday, Angle defended her privatization scheme, arguing that if a South American military dictatorship can do it, so can the United States.

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Sharron Angle says the nation's Social Security system needs to be privatized, and she says it was done before in Chile.

Angle referred to the South American country on Thursday in North Las Vegas while explaining previous statements that the United States should phase out its current system.

Specifically, Angle told the CBS affiliate in Las Vegas, "So when I said private, that's what I meant -- that I thought we would have to go just to the private sector just for a template on how this is supposed to be done. However, I've seen been studying, and Chile has done this."

Oh, well, if Angle's been "studying," then I'm sure it's a good idea.

Except it's not. In 1981, Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet privatized the nation's pensions system. The experiment failed rather spectacularly, and in 2008, the country started moving back towards more government oversight and control.

If this seems vaguely familiar, it's because we've already had this debate. In 2005, the Bush White House and assorted privatization activists talked up Chile's radical experiment, but the talking point fizzled when policy experts highlighted just how awful Chile's experiment was. I'm surprised Angle didn't notice any of this while "studying."

It's almost as if Sharron Angle is some sort of crazy person, spouting nonsense about a pillar of American society, which she seems to know nothing about. That couldn't be, could it?

And just as an aside, there's something I've never understood about the right's standards for international comparisons. If the left suggests the U.S. pursue a public policy that's worked in, say, Germany, conservatives respond, "They're trying to turn us into Europe!" But when Angle praises Pincohet's privatization scheme and suggests we emulate here, no one seems inclined to argue, "Republicans are trying to turn us into a South American military dictatorship!"

Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

PRESIDENT OBAMA STEPS UP, OFFERS STRONG DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.... There was no political upside. Polls show Americans oppose the development of a Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, while Republicans use the issue for shameless demagoguery, desperately trying to pit Americans against each other, hoping fear and bigotry will be worth a few percentage points on Election Day.

The easy course would have been for President Obama to steer clear of the dispute, and stick to the line that the Cordoba House at Park51 is a local matter, best left to local officials.

But Obama instead chose to ignore the easy course, show some genuine leadership, and take a firm stand in support of religious liberty. It was largely a symbolic gesture -- whether the center is built or not is not up to the administration -- but it was a powerful articulation of quintessential American principles, which a few too many of our compatriots have forgotten.

Last night, the White House hosted an iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan, a tradition started by Thomas Jefferson. Obama used the occasion to state his unequivocal support for religious liberty in general, and the Cordoba House project in particular.

"Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

"But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

"We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -- from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we're fighting against, and what we're fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam -- it's a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -- they're terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

"So that's who we're fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms -- it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us -- and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today."

It was as clear a demonstration of President Obama's character and courage as we've seen in quite some time. There is some political risk in defending religious liberty when it's unpopular, but he did it anyway. He didn't hedge; he didn't equivocate; he didn't try to find some middle-ground compromise. He heard the words of small-minded demagogues and chose to respond with simple truths, honoring American principles while the political winds blow in the other direction.

Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary. The country would celebrate religious liberty for all, and we'd recognize that it's not our way to allow our neighbors to be second-class citizens.

But sometimes, Americans need a reminder about the values that make us great. Last night, the president gave us one.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 13, 2010

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* One more step in the Gulf: "Although tests of BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico appear to show that it is fully sealed, the government said Friday that work on a relief well will continue to complete the job of permanently plugging the gusher."

* If only 60 senators cared: "Last month was the second warmest July on record, and so far 2010 remains on track to be the hottest year."

* Was Congress' ban on ACORN funding a bill of attainder? The 2nd Circuit says no: "A federal appellate court has reversed a lower court's holding that a congressional ban on funding to ACORN violated the Constitution, and held instead that the law passes muster." The three-judge panel was unanimous.

* White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is wrapping up his thoughts on the "professional left," and told the Huffington Post that President Obama's desire to be pushed and held accountable by the left hasn't changed. "I also stand by my statement... that the vast majority of progressives and those on the left, whether that's bloggers or groups or what have you, do not hold those beliefs and are pushing in good faith for a better country as they see it," Gibbs said. "The president has urged those who want change to push for it and hold him accountable, and that's how he feels."

* Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) holds a press conference. The House Democratic caucus hopes no one watched.

* Dahlia Lithwick on the "real tragedy of the Omar Khadr trial."

* National Review's Andy McCarthy inadvertently makes the case that Liz Cheney worked for an organization that was "transparently pro-Palestinian and pro-sharia."

* Support for Social Security remains strong nationwide, but confusion about the program's finances is far too widespread.

* Will Fox News keep pushing the New Black Panther Party nonsense? Take a wild guess.

* I always appreciate it when Yglesias incorporates sci-fi into his worthwhile policy observations.

* Come to think of it, I also always appreciate it when Krugman incorporates sci-fi into his worthwhile policy observations, too. Isn't the overlap between political junkies and sci-fi fans great?

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Rush Limbaugh is still pretending to take Alvin Greene seriously. Greene, the ostensible Democratic Senate candidate in South Carolina, was indicted today on felony charges of showing pornography to a college student, but Rush's defense continues.

It's not quite clear what point Limbaugh was trying to make, but discussing Greene on his show today, and noting that Democrats want nothing to do with the bizarre candidate, the right-wing radio host argued, "It's the Democrats that try to keep black people out of political powerful positions; it ain't us."

Ahem.

Obviously, trying to take Limbaugh seriously is foolish. Finding merit in his observations on race is absurd. But once we get to the point where he's trying to convince his listeners that Democrats want to "keep black people out of political powerful positions," we've left the realm of crazy and are knee-deep in farce.

Who, exactly, is going to believe such nonsense?

It wouldn't be quite so discomforting if Limbaugh weren't helping call the shots for the Republican Party.

Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

EXPLAINING NET NEUTRALITY IN A WAY TEA PARTIERS CAN UNDERSTAND.... Apparently, Tea Party groups and leaders have been giving net neutrality a look, and they've decided they don't like it.

A coalition that included 35 tea party groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Wednesday urging the agency not to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification. [...]

The Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation was among the groups that signed the letter. Jamie Radtke, the group's chairman, said interest in net neutrality is rising in the tea party movement. [...]

Radke said the tea party opposition to net neutrality stems from concerns over increased government power. "I think the clearest thing is it's an affront to free speech and free markets," she said.

Now, like most of this crowd's positions, that's obviously backwards. In fact, watching the Tea Partiers for a while now, there seems to be one common thread to all of their positions: seemingly well-intentioned, but deeply confused, people let their anti-government zealotry get in the way of reason.

In the case of net neutrality, the whole point of the debate is to prevent service providers from favoring some content and applications over others. In the dispute between consumers (the American public) and providers (corporate media giants), Tea Partiers have chosen to fight for the latter.

These conservatives are convinced this has something to do with free speech. That doesn't make any sense.

Let's put this in a way Tea Partiers can understand. Let's say Mr. and Mrs. Tea Party Zealot love to use the Internet for political activism -- they frequent right-wing websites, send around clips of Hannity and Limbaugh, organize right-wing events, post sycophantic praise on Sarah Palin's website, the works.

But let's say their service provider is a (cue scary music) liberal company, which contributes heavily to Democrats. The media giant that this family pays for Internet access wants to make it easy for customers to access socialist content, send around pictures of Karl Marx, coordinate with the New Black Panther Party, and send money to gay illegal immigrants, but would make it exceedingly difficult to access RedState.com, visit Glenn Beck's activist sites, access Palin's Facebook age, etc.

At that point, Mr. and Mrs. Tea Party Zealot would probably be pretty unhappy. It's not fair, they'd conclude, that some Internet content (which they don't want) is easily accessible, while other content (stuff they do want) is slow and difficult. What they'd prefer is a level playing field, where all content is equally easy to reach.

What they want, in other words, is net neutrality.

Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

LOUIE GOHMERT'S FREAK-OUT ON CNN.... Following up on an item from yesterday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has taken an active role in making a case against the 14th Amendment with an argument even most conservatives avoid: the dreaded "terrorist baby" threat.

Gohmert started pushing the argument in June, insisting that pregnant terrorists plan to come to American soil, have babies, and "20, 30 years down the road," these home-grown terrorists will "help destroy our way of life." This wasn't just some fantasy he cooked up, Gohmert argued. He claimed to have received important information from "a retired FBI agent" who told him national security officials believe "terrorist cells overseas" have "figured out how to game our system" when it comes to birthright citizenship.

On Wednesday, CNN's Anderson Cooper talked on the air to Tom Fuentes, who served as the FBI's assistant director in the office of international operations from 2004 to 2008. Fuentes explained that the crazy theory has no basis in reality, and there's simply never been any evidence that terrorists are pursuing such a strategy. Indeed, it wouldn't be necessary, since terrorists can already recruit willing participants. A statement from the FBI to CNN confirmed that allegations of "terror-baby" plots are unfounded.

Anderson Cooper gave Gohmert a chance to make his case on CNN last night, presenting any substance he has to bolster the theory. You'll just have to watch the clip to believe it.

I usually like to offer readers who can't watch clips from their work computers at least a partial transcript, but this one's awfully tough to capture. CNN published a transcript -- such as it was -- which should offer at least some sense of what transpired.

To sum it up, Cooper asked for some evidence to support the assertions Gohmert has been making -- in the media, on the House floor, etc. Gohmert responded by shouting a lot, and having something of a breakdown.

I give Cooper a lot of credit for handling this like a pro. He kept his cool, tried to conduct a serious interview, and wasn't rattled when Gohmert lost his mind. But there just wasn't much he could do with the right-wing Texan. You'll just have to watch to see what I mean.

Postscript: Just as an aside, I can't help but wonder what kind of influential position the House Republican leadership will give Gohmert if they take back the House majority.

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share

44 AND 40.... There's been a fair amount of talk in recent months about the similarities in President Reagan's first-term trajectory and President Obama's. Given the ways in which their poll numbers are almost identical over their first 19 months in office -- congressional Republicans weren't even especially keen about campaigning with Reagan in the '82 midterms -- the comparison seems salient.

Indeed, the larger parallels should be obvious. Obama, like Reagan, succeeded an unpopular president from the other party in the midst of tough economic times. Obama, like Reagan, presented an agenda that was a significant break with the recent past. Obama, like Reagan, saw the unemployment rate climb towards 10% before his first midterm cycle. Obama, like Reagan, found his approval rating slip into the mid-40s after a year and a half in office.

For Obama backers, the model offers hope. The economy started to rebound in Reagan's third year, and by the time he sought re-election in 1984, the economy was humming. His weaker standing in 1982 was quickly forgotten when he won in a 49-state landslide. If a similar pattern holds for Obama, the future need not be bleak.

At least, that's what we see looking at the parallels in the broadest sense. Ezra Klein notes today that the differences may matter more.

Whether Obama's polling follows Reagan's has less to do with whether Obama "is" Reagan and more to do with whether Ben Bernanke is Paul Volcker. The recession afflicting Ronald Reagan was, in large part, Volcker's creation. It was an attempt to break inflation, and it worked. The strategy was simple: Raise interest rates. And thus, the recovery was simple, too: Lower interest rates. GDP growth went from negative in 1982 to 7 percent in 1984. If that happens to Obama then, as Matthew Yglesias says, he'll indeed cruise to reelection.

The problem for the Obama-Reagan comparison is that this isn't a Fed-created recession. It's a financial crisis. And they take longer to recover from.

Good point. Paul Krugman had a helpful item on this last week, highlighting the differences between the recession that began in 1981 and the one that began in 2007. The former was created deliberately by the Fed to curb inflation -- Volcker raised interest rates a lot, which did the trick. Eventually, Volcker lowered rates again, the housing industry boomed, and the economy turned around. Reagan cut taxes in '81, but it didn't do much to change the economy's trajectory. Reagan raised taxes a year later, but this didn't affect the economy, either.

The Great Recession that began nearly three years ago is a different kind of animal entirely. As Krugman noted, "The 2007-9 recession was driven by the collapse of a huge housing bubble, and the resulting financial fallout. The Fed couldn't cut rates sharply, because they weren't all that high to begin with; there couldn't be a housing boom, because housing was already overbuilt."

Given the differences, we're talking about different recoveries growing at different speeds, after recessions that occurred for very different reasons. Still, the Fed has options. Will Bernanke do for Obama what Volcker did for Reagan? As Ezra concluded, we're "unlikely to see a recovery that robust if the Federal Reserve doesn't see encouraging that sort of recovery as part of its mandate."

Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

ALL THE ERRORS OF FACT AND JUDGMENT ROLLED UP INTO ONE COLUMN.... I'm not surprised Charles Krauthammer opposes the construction of the Cordoba House at Park51 in lower Manhattan; I'm a little surprised his column on the subject is so astoundingly bad. Given all that's been said on the subject, it seemed likely he'd know what pitfalls to ignore, instead of aiming right at them.

He begins by trying to convince us that Ground Zero is a special, sacred place.

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War.... It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Got it. In fact, I heartily endorse the premise of Krauthammer's observation -- Ground Zero really is special. I wouldn't want to see a fast-food place built at the site of the fallen Twin Towers, and I wouldn't want a strip-mall, either. I'd balk at the idea of building a church, a mosque, a temple, or a synagogue at Ground Zero, just as quickly as I'd oppose an amusement part at the site.

But Krauthammer is making a compelling case against an idea that doesn't exist. Literally no one is suggesting that the Cordoba House be built "at," "over," or "on" Ground Zero -- it's proposed location is a couple of blocks away. Indeed, within a two-block radius of Ground Zero, there are all kinds of establishments -- restaurants, coffee shops, office buildings, churches, strip-clubs, etc. -- and Feisal Abdul Rauf wants his proposed community center to be among them. What does Ground Zero's sacred qualities have to do with this? Nothing at all, which is why this debate is so ridiculous.

Also note the lesson Krauthammer believes Pope John Paul II was offering: "This is not your place; it belongs to others." In this case, who are we to believe "others" are? On Sept. 11, 2001, the victims included innocents of every race, ethnicity, and religion. Krauthammer seems to suggest Muslim Americans are the "others" who should stay away. That's as absurd as it is offensive.

But wait, it gets worse.

Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?

Great idea, Chuck. Let's have the government deny Americans their First Amendment rights based on a hypothetical scenario about a possible employment decision that may or may not happen at some point in the future. "Constitutional conservatives" should find this persuasive, right?

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal.

Actually, it doesn't. I'm on board with "location matters," which is why I reject Krauthammer's point -- in this case, the "location matters" because the Cordoba House would be built blocks from Ground Zero, in the former home of a Burlington Coat Factory, which, with all due respect to the clothing store, isn't exactly hallowed ground.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

Sure, zoning laws exist for reason, but that's not much of an argument. As Greg Sargent explained, "[T]he United States Constitution does not expressly forbid government zoning against liquor stores or strip malls. However, it does expressly forbid government interference with 'the free exercise' of religion.... The comparison is also problematic in another way. While zoning codes do prohibit liquor stores and strip malls in some cases, the location for the Islamic center isn't zoned against such projects; and it has already been green-lighted by the city Landmarks Commission. So by what mechanism should government block this project? Krauthammer doesn't say."

That's because he can't. The entire column is a weak house of cards from a loaded deck.

Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

Bookmark and Share

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's closely-watched Senate race, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading Sharron Angle (R) by just two points, 46% to 44%.

* In Florida, disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott's (R) scandalous past seems to be catching up with him. As more revelations come to light, his once-strong standing in the Republican gubernatorial primary is falling apart, and a new Mason-Dixon poll shows him trailing state A.G. Bill McCollum, 34% to 30%. As the two GOP gubernatorial candidates continue to slam each other, state CFO Alex Sink (D) now leads both Republicans in hypothetical match-ups.

* In a display of post-primary unity in Colorado, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff joined Sen. Michael Bennet for a rally yesterday, endorsing his Democratic rival and urging his supporters to focus on helping elect Bennet in November.

* On a related note, Rasmussen, unlike other recent independent polls, shows GOP oddball Ken Buck leading Bennet, 46% to 41%.

* The gloves are coming off in Louisiana, where Rep. Charlie Melancon's (D) new ad goes after Sen. David Vitter (R) for hiring prostitutes, having a weak legislative record, and for hiring an abusive criminal to oversee women's issues.

* While most polls in California show Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading in her re-election bid, SurveyUSA shows failed former HP CEO Carly Fiorina out in front, 47% to 42%.

* Speaking of California, SurveyUSA also shows former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) with a narrow lead over state A.G. Jerry Brown (D), 44% to 43%.

* And in case there were any doubts, Sen. Dick Lugar (R) will seek re-election in 2012.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

INTERNMENT CAMPS?.... Marg Baker, a Republican state House candidate in Florida, recently spoke to a Glenn Beck activist group about her ideas for detaining illegal immigrants: internment camps.

"We can follow what happened back in the '40s or '50s," Barker told her right-wing allies. "I was just a little girl in Miami, and they built camps for the people that snuck into the country, because they were illegal. They put them in the camps, and they shipped them back. We can do that."

Was she saying that I think she's saying? Pretty much. Salon's Justin Elliott spoke to Baker yesterday.

"We can ship them out to the middle of the country and put up high walls and leave them there," said Marg Baker, the middle-aged real estate broker vying for the Republican nomination in the state's 48th district, north of Tampa. [...]

Asked if what she had in mind was more like the Japanese internment camps of the World War II era, Baker said, "something like that. But unfortunately in the Japanese camps they detained American citizens. The only ones I want to detain are the ones who are illegal."

Putting aside the bizarre idea that a human being can be "illegal," Baker added that she would target all undocumented immigrants not just Hispanics. How gracious of her. She went on to express concern about those "walking among us, and who knows."

I'm not sure what that means, though I seem to recall similar lines in X-Files scripts.

Regardless, what we have here is a Republican candidate who looks back at internment camps and thinks this is an idea worth bringing back. Seriously.

I don't want to make too much of this, given that we're just talking about one nutty GOP candidate in a state legislative race, and there's no evidence that the Republican mainstream will start calling for hearings on the viability of American concentration camps.

But it never really occurred to me that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and his colleagues would call for a partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, either. Ridiculous ideas seem to have a way of working their way up the far-right ladder fairly quickly, so I suppose this is worth keeping an eye on.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

MAKING GOOD USE OF THE WHITE HOUSE BLOG.... As a rule, the White House blog is fine. It's not at a must-read, refresh-throughout-the-day level, but it's a handy resource and I'm glad it's there.

But the significance of the blog grows as its content becomes more aggressive (i.e., it starts to sound more like other political blogs of note). For example, on Wednesday, Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden's chief economist, posted an item, explaining the negative consequences of House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) suggestion to scrap "unspent" stimulus funds. "John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs," Bernstein wrote, before backing up the true/provocative claim.

Boehner's office offered a response, arguing that the Obama administration should explain "how raising taxes on small businesses will do anything but further hinder job creation in Ohio and across the country."

So, following the tradition of how this medium should work, Bernstein wrote a follow-up post.

Again, Congressman Boehner is confused. So we thought we'd take him up on the invitation to explain to the people of Ohio who has been fighting for small businesses here in Washington and who's been obstructing that fight. [...]

[C]ollecting his positions over the past couple of days, Rep. Boehner wants to: a) end the Recovery Act that has put more than 100,000 Ohioans to work, b) add $37 billion to the deficit by cutting taxes of the wealthiest households, and c) block tax cuts and new lines of credit to middle-class, small businesses.

It all sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? That's because it's precisely the policy prescription that got us into this mess. And it's the last place we want to go back to.

Also yesterday, Deputy Communications Director Jen Psaki posted an item to the same White House blog, slamming the Republican drive to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Notice the traditional blog-like tone.

Let me get this straight. Republicans are arguing that for the wealthiest Americans -- those making more than $250,000 per year -- it is not enough that they receive a $6,300 tax cut relative to what they paid in the 1990s, they need to maintain the entire bush tax cut. But at a pivotal time in economic recovery, they are refusing to provide necessary assistance to small businesses including zero capital gains, bonus depreciation and a small business lending facility that will help small businesses get the access to credit they need.

Talk about out of whack priorities.

Substantively, this is all completely correct, and I'm glad the White House is putting the information out there. But it's also interesting to see officials use the WH blog to throw a few elbows and do some aggressive fact-checking, which to my mind, is why the site exists.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

THE INADEQUACY OF POLITICAL REPORTERS' FANTASIES.... Politico's Mike Allen chatted with far-right media personality Hugh Hewitt this week, and the two speculated about the midterm elections. It led to an exchange I can't quite wrap my head around. (via Atrios)

Hewitt: Yes, I'm saying that Michael Bennet's going to get wiped out by Ken Buck. What do you think?

Allen: (laughing) I don't know, but I can tell you the press loves the fact that Ken Buck, he'll definitely be covered. Very colorful, he definitely will be good copy. It's just like the dream of every reporter is that the Republicans will pick up nine seats, and that Marco Rubio wins in Florida, because Hugh, you know what that means?

Hewitt: Impeachment! No. (laughing)

Allen: That's a 50-50 Senate. That's power sharing. Ben Nelson suddenly is huge.

Now, it's certainly possible that Republicans will pick up nine seats in November. That seems like a pretty ambitious goal, but I suppose it's doable if the cards fall just right for the GOP.

What I don't know is why that's "the dream of every reporter." We had a 50-50 Senate early in 2001, and it wasn't especially exciting. Indeed, as Republicans moved even further to the right in the ensuing decade, an evenly-divided Senate wouldn't be more interesting, it'd be considerably less so -- the entire institution, which is often paralyzed in a 59-41 chamber, would grind to a halt. Nothing could pass the committee process; nothing could reach the floor; nothing could overcome a filibuster, and nothing could pass.

That's not the stuff of fantasy; it's the stuff of nightmare. It wouldn't be exciting; it'd be boring. ("The Senate today failed once again to act on _______. It is the ____ consecutive bill the Senate has killed this year.")

As for Allen welcoming the day in which Ben Nelson is "huge," I can't help but notice that Ben Nelson already has enormous influence. In a 60-40 Senate late last year, Nelson was the single most important lawmaker in Washington. On every key vote, the Senate leadership has to make sure the center-right Nebraskan is happy -- a dynamic the senator is happy to exploit -- if Democrats have any hopes at all of overcoming GOP obstructionism.

It's possible Allen's envisioning a scenario in which Republicans are suddenly able to start legislating by adding Nelson's vote to their unanimous caucus, but under those circumstances, the bills would (a) be vetoed by the White House; or (b) would be blocked by Democratic filibusters.

Besides, what's so great about making Ben Nelson "huge"? What makes this the stuff of Mike Allen's dreams?

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

TESTING THE LIMITS OF GRABBING THE THIRD RAIL.... In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower (R) wrote a letter to his brother. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history," Ike said. The president acknowledged in the letter that there are some who advocate such nonsense, but added, "Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Eisenhower's Republican Party has come a long way in the last half-century, and what was once considered fringe stupidity has become far more common. And with Social Security celebrating its 75th anniversary, there's a renewed effort to shine a light on the GOP's willingness to gut this bedrock American institution, if not eliminate it altogether.

The Republican push is not without some precedent. In 1936, repealing Social Security was part of the GOP platform. Seven decades later, George W. Bush launched a ridiculous privatization scheme that the nation strongly rejected, and which congressional Republicans want to great lengths to avoid.

This year, opposition to Social Security throughout the Republican Party is at its strongest, most pervasive levels since the mid-'30s. With that in mind, the DNC released this web video overnight, using the anniversary to remind folks which party supports Social Security, and which doesn't.

"From Sharron Angle to Rand Paul and from Paul Ryan to John Boehner -- Republicans are talking about either phasing out Social Security entirely or making such radical changes to it as to dismantle and make it unrecognizable to the successful program it has been for 75 years," DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse said.

An initiative like this one serves a few different purposes. The first is pretty basic -- Social Security is popular, and Republican plans to undermine it aren't. The second has to do with demographics -- seniors tend to vote in large numbers; they're very big fans of Social Security; and they're not especially happy with Democrats right now. A push like this one may hope to give Dems a boost with a key age group.

But in the bigger picture, I think there's a more subtle point, and it gets back to the Eisenhower quote. The American mainstream embraces Social Security as a pillar of American life. It's been one of the most, if not the most, successful domestic government program in our nation's history. The country tends to look at those who would undermine this institution as being radical, or in Ike's word, stupid.

And yet, in 2010, leading GOP voices, positions of power and influence, haven't been particularly shy about their desire to privatize Social Security, cut benefits, or pursue the wholesale elimination of the program.

If the goal is to characterize Republicans as extremists, this effort seems to fit the bill.

Steve Benen 9:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

AN OFFENSIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION ON RACE.... Remember Dr. Laura Schlessinger? Apparently, she still has a radio show, and for reasons I can't understand, there are still people who call her, seeking guidance and advice.

This week, a woman called Schlessinger's show with an upsetting problem. The caller is in an inter-racial marriage -- she's black, her husband is white -- and is offended when her husband's friends and family members make racist remarks. Schlessinger was unimpressed and blamed the woman, telling the caller that she's "hypersensitive" -- a problem "bred by black activists" -- and needs a better sense of humor. To prove the point, Schlessinger kept repeating the N-word, because "black guys say it all the time."

Schlessinger's website features a recording of her daily program, but in this case, the show edited out this entire exchange. Media Matters, however, has the full recording and transcript.

The host appears to realize she's made a terrible mistake.

Talk radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has issued an apology for saying the N-word several times in an on-air conversation with a caller that she said was "hypersensitive" to racism.

Schlessinger said on her website Wednesday that she was wrong in using the word for what she called an attempt to make a philosophical point.

"I articulated the N-word all the way out -- more than one time," Schlessinger said in comments from the opening of her radio show that she posted on her site. "And that was wrong. I'll say it again -- that was wrong."

That's fine, I suppose, but whether Schlessinger realizes it or not, there are some remarks one can't take back. Her racist tirade was so over the top, so devoid of decency, a simple acknowledgement of wrongdoing seems wholly inadequate.

It's often hard to predict what constitutes a career-killing moment on talk radio, but I have a hard time imagining sponsors sticking with this show in the future.

Steve Benen 8:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share

PAKISTAN'S TIME OF NEED.... Devastating flooding has left a fifth of Pakistan underwater, affecting 14 million people, many of whom are now dependent on humanitarian aid to survive, and killing 1,600. Public health officials fear water-borne diseases may make matters even worse with "hazards from dirty floodwater warming in the daytime summer heat."

And while this story is obviously about a humanitarian crisis, there are geo-political considerations, given security concerns in Pakistan and its role in the region. The Pakistani Taliban, for example, has said it's prepared to help flood victims -- but only if the Pakistani government agrees not to accept assistance from the United States.

Fortunately, Pakistani officials have done the opposite, and the U.S. is responding in a country where America isn't especially popular. The Washington Post noted, "While the ultimate impact on Pakistani public opinion is unknown, the United States has earned rare and almost universal praise here for acting quickly to speed aid to those hit hardest."

The Pakistanis rescued Wednesday were among more than 2,700 picked up over the past week by six U.S. choppers that have also delivered bags of flour and biscuits to stranded residents of the flood-ravaged Swat Valley, in the country's northwest. Nineteen larger helicopters will take over that effort, the U.S. Central Command announced Wednesday night.

"The American assistance has been considerable, it has been prompt, and it has been effective," said Tanvir Ahmad Khan, a former Pakistani foreign secretary and now chairman of the Islamabad-based Institute of Strategic Studies. "The sheer visibility of American personnel and helicopters working in the field gives a feeling of very welcome assistance from the United States."

The point of international aid in a crisis is to relieve suffering; generating goodwill can't be the top concern. That said, this is an opportunity for the U.S. to make a difference in saving lives in the short term, while improving our standing in Pakistan for the future.

There was an initial delay in deploying U.S. helicopters at use in Afghanistan, but American personnel and equipment have been arriving quickly since. The USS Peleliu is off the Pakistani coast, carrying 19 new heavy-lift helicopters to aid in the response. "Pakistan is our friend, an ally, and in their time of need, we are committed to partnering with their government and military to support their efforts to bring relief to the millions of Pakistanis impacted by these floods," Gen. James N. Mattis, the new Centcom commander, said as he announced the additional helicopters.

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council's South Asia Center, added, "Rapid U.S. action to support Pakistan's relief efforts may help improve America's image among a population that generally resents the United States. Washington's $55 million aid pledge makes it the largest donor among the international community. U.S. Chinooks -- seen as angels of mercy after the 2005 earthquake -- are helping Pakistanis over flood-ravaged mountains and plains, and represent both U.S. ability to help Pakistanis and the Pakistani military's willingness to work with its U.S. counterparts."

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 12, 2010

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* A fifth of Pakistan is currently underwater. The U.N. estimates that "about 14 million people have been affected by the floods, 6 million of them are children, according to the United Nations children's organization, usually known as Unicef. Estimates of the dead have ranged between 1,200 and 1,600."

* I sure wish someone would do something: "This morning, the Department of Labor reported that weekly initial jobless claims climbed to the highest level in five months, up 2,000 to 484,000, with last week's number revised up to 482,000. That was nearly 20,000 higher than economists expected."

* The Senate reconvened very briefly today, and by unanimous consent, approved a $600 million bill for border security.

* I'm really glad Republicans were prevented from killing off GM: "In a signal moment for the turnaround of the American auto industry, General Motors is edging toward a public stock sale, and its profits are now solid enough that the demanding CEO will step aside, saying his work is done."

* Jon Chait's amusing takedowns of Pete Wehner's propaganda take on a poetic flair.

* A New Hampshire state lawmaker resigned today after joking about Sarah Palin's death on Facebook.

* The Republican base, meanwhile, continues to use violent rhetoric when lashing out against Democratic lawmakers.

* I feel like I see this sentiment more and more all the time: "A sign of how radical and extremist the GOP now is: on the question of the war on terror (and immigration), some of us are beginning to see the relative moderation and sophistication of George W. Bush."

* Daniel Luzer: "At what point will Americans just refuse to pay huge sums of money to attend college? It's hard to tell but this does make for an interesting element to the 'is college worth it' discussion."

* Jon Stewart considered congressional Republicans' rhetoric on economic policy on "The Daily Show" last night. Responding to rhetoric from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Stewart said, "That is either the most profound or most retarded statement I've ever heard. You know what, actually it's the most profoundly retarded statement I've ever heard."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

GOING TO THE CHAPEL.... Last week, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker declared California's Proposition 8, banning marriage equality in the state, to be unconstitutional. Today, Walker said Prop 8 will no longer apply to California, as of Wednesday afternoon.

The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban ruled Thursday that gay marriages can resume starting Aug. 18.

The decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker means gay and lesbian couples will have to wait six days before they can get married. That gives gay marriage opponents time to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeals court fails to act by 5 p.m. local time next Wednesday, then gay marriages can go forward.

In his ruling, Walker concluded, "Because proponents make no argument that they -- as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs -- will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay."

That's obviously encouraging, but we don't yet know whether the 9th Circuit, generally considered the most progressive appeals court bench, will again stay the ruling, and keep the ban in place as the case continues through the appeals process.

I'm not an attorney -- those who know the procedural details here are encouraged to weigh in on this in the comments section -- but it's my understanding that today's announcement will, at a minimum, expedite the review of Walker's decision from last week.

On a related note, FDL has an interesting item on the three judges most likely to hear the appeal at the 9th Circuit, and why there's ample reason to be optimistic that the three will uphold the underlying Walker ruling.

Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

DEBUNKING THE DREADED 'TERRORIST BABY' THREAT.... In recent months, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has been making his case against the 14th Amendment with an argument even most conservatives avoid: the dreaded "terrorist baby" threat.

Gohmert got the ball rolling in June, arguing that pregnant terrorists plan to come to American soil, have babies, and "20, 30 years down the road," these home-grown terrorists will "help destroy our way of life." This wasn't just some fantasy he cooked up, Gohmert argued. He claimed to have received important information from "a retired FBI agent" who told him national security officials believe "terrorist cells overseas" have "figured out how to game our system" when it comes to birthright citizenship.

This week on CNN, Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle (R) also claims to have received information from "former FBI officials," warning of terrorist babies.

Last night, CNN's Anderson Cooper talked on the air to Tom Fuentes, who served as the FBI's assistant director in the office of international operations from 2004 to 2008. Fuentes didn't seem especially impressed with the right-wing lawmakers at their crazy theory.

"The FBI has 75 offices overseas, including offices in Jordan, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan," explained Fuentes. "There was never a credible report -- or any report, for that matter -- coming across through all the various mechanisms of communication to indicate that there was such a plan for these terror babies to be born.

"Also, I'd like to add, there seems to be a lot of former FBI agents lurking in the halls of Congress and in the legislature in the state of Texas, so I'm kind of curious about that issue as well."

"I think -- in this case, I think the FBI has knocked this story down completely, officially or unofficially," Fuentes also added. "I think at first they didn't want to comment on it just because they didn't want to lend any credence to the people spreading it, but realized that there has to be some comment or else the no comment, you know, means there might be some secret classified information out there, but -- but there is no credible information about this particular aspect."

Fuentes didn't come right out and say, "These Republicans are lying to the public," but he came awfully close.

If recent history is any guide, this won't affect the debate at all, and hacks like Gohmert will continue to repeat this nonsense anyway. But for those who care about evidence and reason, it's nice to have such a thorough debunking to refer to.

Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

PICKING UP THE SLACK ON BLOOMBERG BASHING.... Last week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) delivered a beautiful speech in support of the Cordoba House, the proposed Muslim community center to be built a couple of blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

It was the kind of speech that, under more ideal circumstances, effectively ends a debate: "Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."

The right's push against the community center, of course, has only increased since, but I haven't seen much in the way of criticism of Bloomberg. I'd assumed it was because the mayor's position was so difficult to refute, Republicans chose to just steer clear of it.

But Bill Kristol today starts the overdue offensive against the mayor.

The conclusion of Bloomberg's speech was odd: "Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure -- and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest." Do the rest of us need Bloomberg's hand-picked religious leaders to tell us that there are no limits to God's love and mercy?

Actually, I suspect the point of Bloomberg assembling an ecumenical panel was to prove that this "controversy" isn't about helping one specific religious tradition -- it's about honoring principles that serve the interests of all. It's why we're seeing diverse groups of faith leaders stepping up to denounce "xenophobia and religious bigotry" in the midst of this debate.

Kristol added:

[I]f Bloomberg were to have his way, it's worth noting that he would presumably attend a dedication of Feisal Abdul Rauf's mosque at Ground Zero before he would attend a dedication of a proper memorial to those who died there.

Contemporary liberalism means building a mosque rather than a memorial at Ground Zero -- and telling your fellow citizens to shut up about it.

I don't know nearly enough about internal NYC politics to know why there's been so little progress at the Ground Zero site; maybe Bloomberg deserves some blame, maybe not. I'm not in a position to say.

I can say, however, that Kristol is playing a dishonest little game, which is consistent with his usual brand of intellectual dishonesty. The building at Park51 would not stand "at Ground Zero," and Kristol knows it. He's just hoping conservative activists won't know the difference.

Kristol could have gone after Bloomberg on the merits, but that wouldn't have worked out as well. It's cheap shots like this that continue to make it impossible for credible observers to take Kristol seriously.

Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

ONE OF THESE REGIONS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS.... In the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Democrats enjoy the narrowest of leads over Republicans on the generic ballot, 44% to 43%. That's a slight improvement over June, when Republicans led by two, but the parties have effectively been tied on this question since last fall, trading small leads month to month.

generic_ballot_by_region.png

What those top-line results don't show, however, is that there are some interesting regional differences. Taegan Goddard flagged this tidbit from the MSNBC report: "The GOP has a HUGE generic-ballot edge in the South (52%-31%), but it doesn't lead anywhere else. In the Northeast, Dems have a 55%-30% edge; in the Midwest, they lead 49%-38%; and in the West, it's 44%-43%."

I made another homemade chart to help drive the point home. (The lucrative world of blog-chart making awaits, right?)

Now, I'm not sure why the Republicans' 21-point lead in the South is all-caps "huge," but Dems' 25-point lead in the Northeast isn't, but nevertheless, it is a reminder that the playing field is not altogether level. The GOP's strength has been in the South for several years, and that clearly hasn't changed.

Of course, this is only a guide, pointing to regional differences -- it doesn't mean Democratic candidates outside the South have nothing to worry about. As First Read noted, "Many of the congressional districts Republicans are targeting outside of the South resemble some of those Southern districts they're hoping to win back in November -- where you have whiter and older voters. Think Stephanie Herseth's seat in South Dakota; Tim Walz' seat in Minnesota; Leonard Boswell's seat in Iowa; and Ike Skelton's in Missouri."

Still, we've been talking for years about the Republican Party becoming increasingly regionalized, and these trends are continuing.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) chatted with National Review this week, and shared his thoughts on the proposed Cordoba House a couple of blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. Cantor offered the kind of thoughtful, well-reasoned response we've come to expect from the GOP leader.

"Everybody knows America's built on the rights of free expression, the rights to practice your faith, but come on. The World Trade Centers were brought down by Islamic extremists, uh, radicals who were bent on killing Americans and accomplished that in unimaginable ways. I think it is the height of insensitivity, uh, and unreasonableness to allow for the construction of a mosque on the site of the World Trade Center bombings.

"I mean, come on."

Well, it certainly isn't easy to argue with logic like that.

But let's give it a shot. First, "come on" is not a good reason to ignore the rights America was built on. Second, murderous, violent extremists executed the 9/11 attacks, and this would absolutely be relevant in this debate, if murderous, violent extremists were trying to build a community center in Manhattan. Since that isn't happening in our reality -- Feisal Abdul Rauf was a sought out ally of the Bush administration -- Cantor's point seems pretty foolish.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Politico described Cantor as "a serious wonk." It wasn't a quote, it was simply something Politico asserted, as if it were obviously true.

It's not. Cantor has a reputation for being slightly more cerebral than his House Republican brethren, but it's not deserved in the slightest.

Eric Cantor continues to be a classic example of a post turtle -- you know he didn't get up there by himself; he obviously doesn't belong up there; he can't get anything done while he's there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down.

Some Republicans may disagree with this assessment, but I mean, come on.

Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

EVEN BECK MOVES CLOSER TO SUPPORTING MARRIAGE EQUALITY... Yesterday, CNN released a national poll with some encouraging news: this pollster found for the first time that a majority of Americans believe "gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid." What was once wildly controversial has become refreshingly mainstream.

How mainstream? Even Glenn Beck is moving away from his previous opposition to marriage equality.

The oft-deranged media personality was on Fox News last night, chatting with Bill O'Reilly about various culture-war issues, and Beck conceded he doesn't consider gay marriage an especially important matter. "Honestly, I think we have bigger fish to fry," Beck said.

"Do you believe gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" O'Reilly asked.

"A threat to the country? No, I don't," Beck said, laughing, adding mockingly, "Will the gays come and get us?"

Beck quoted Thomas Jefferson: "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"

O'Reilly responded by insisting that Beck is "ignoring the profound change in the American family." I suppose, then, that marriage equality will not become widely endorsed by Fox News' other hosts.

But Beck's comments were nevertheless surprising and helpful. He has a lot of minions who take his "guidance" seriously, and while Beck didn't explicitly endorse gay marriage, his comments certainly can't hurt.

I am intrigued, though, by Beck's choice of Thomas Jefferson quotes. In context, the quote Beck chose came from Jefferson's support for the separation of church and state, and his demand that government power not extend to matters of conscience. Jefferson wrote in 1782, "[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Are Beck and his followers prepared to endorse this sentiment, too? Beck is apparently coming around on marriage equality, but is atheism OK, too?

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* A story that might shake up Florida's gubernatorial race: "Two weeks before Florida's primary, new allegations of improper Medicare billing by Solantic, a health care company co-founded by Rick Scott, have surfaced, in addition to charges made by former Solantic doctors that their names and licenses were used without their consent."

* It took a little longer than expected, but Minnesota state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher officially conceded the Democratic gubernatorial primary yesterday, giving former Sen. Mark Dayton the nomination. "I offered him my full support. He will make an excellent governor," Kelliher said in a statement.

* Any chance former Rep. Tom Tancredo will drop his independent gubernatorial bid in Colorado, now that right-wing novice Dan Maes won the Republican primary? Apparently not. "I have a better chance of winning in a three-way race than Maes has in a two-way race," Tancredo said yesterday.

* On a related note, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) leading Colorado's gubernatorial race, whether he faces one opponent or two. In a head-to-head race with Maes, Hickenlooper leads by 12; in a three-way contest with Tancredo in the mix, Hickenlooper is up by 25.

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, the pollster finds Rep. Roy Blunt (R) leading Missouri's Senate race by seven, topping Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), 50% to 43%.

* Rand Paul (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Kentucky, was forced to apologize yesterday for mischaracterizing the Fancy Farm political church picnic during a Fox News appearance. Paul characterized it as a rowdy gathering, where attendees routinely throw beer. The local Catholic Church that hosts the event, where no alcohol is served, was not amused.

* Arizona congressional candidate Ben Quayle (R), son of a certain former V.P., has been a contributing writer to a raunchy, sex-themed website -- a background he initially lied to reporters about.

* Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) will not challenge President Obama in a Democratic primary in 2012. Good to know.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share

AN OLD, WHITE, TECH-AVERSE AUDIENCE.... A couple of weeks ago, data from Nielsen Media Research showed that Fox News' audience isn't especially diverse. While 20.7% of CNN's viewers are black, and MSNBC's numbers are similar, just 1.38% of Fox News' audience is black.

As it turns out, the Republican network's audience, while obviously larger and whiter than its rivals, is also much older.

In a survey released by analyst Steve Sternberg, Fox News has the oldest audience among fully distributed cable networks. The network's average viewer last season was 65 years old, according to Nielsen. Heck, it's viewers are even older than viewers of Hallmark Channel, Military Channel and Golf Channel.

Perhaps the reason viewers tend to leave Fox News on all day racking up hours of big Nielsen numbers is they can't actually change the channel?

(Ah, Fox News, you know we only kid you because you sort of set yourself up for it).

For comparison purposes, CNN's average audience is two years younger, and MSNBC's is six years younger.

On a related note, as impressive as Fox News' television ratings are, this doesn't translate to much of an online presence.

On the tube, Fox's ratings are so dominant that CNN is turning to prostitution-tarred former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to revive its prime-time lineup. In fact, Fox host Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that rival news nets are all but irrelevant, saying, "If you want to know what's really happening in America, you have to come here." But with millions of Americans turning to the Web for more of their news on a more frequent and immediate basis, can that assessment actually be true?

Foxnews.com averages around 12 million or 13 million monthly unique users, according to Nielsen Online, rarely approaching the 35 million to 40 million uniques that leaders Yahoo News, MSNBC and CNN regularly deliver in aggregate.

There are competing explanations for this -- no, smart guy, it's not because Fox News viewers are illiterate -- but perhaps the strongest argument is "the difficulty in recreating an online version of Fox's trademark shoutcasting model, with blustery partisans and rhetorical melodrama."

Regardless, as a long-term strategy, Fox News is going to have to adjust. An old, white, tech-averse audience is delivering strong ratings now, but it's not a recipe for sustained success.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

EUPHEMISM OF THE DAY.... A variety of adjectives comes to mind to describe some of the bizarre Republican candidates winning statewide primaries this year, but Politico goes with a rather polite one: "offbeat."

A former professional wrestling executive, a libertarian ophthalmologist and a man who thinks bicycle use could empower the United Nations filed to run in elections. That's not the start of a joke: that's a sampling of the deeply unusual pool of candidates running -- and actually being nominated -- for high office this year.

A phenomenon that began with physician Rand Paul's victory in the Kentucky Senate primary has effectively gone national: Primary voters are again and again choosing offbeat candidates shunned by national party strategists, and imperiling potential Republican gains this November in the process.

Elections this week in Colorado and Connecticut yielded a new crop of oddball nominees. Ken Buck, a gaffe-prone prosecutor once ordered to take ethics classes for his handling of an illegal guns case, defeated former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in a Republican Senate primary. In Connecticut, Linda McMahon, who founded World Wrestling Entertainment with her husband Vince, was linked to steroid investigations and appeared in numerous violent and sexually suggestive sketches, bested Rob Simmons, a former congressman and decorated veteran, for the GOP's Senate nomination.

Perhaps the week's most out-of-right-field nominee was Colorado Republican Dan Maes, a conservative activist and first-time candidate who capitalized on a plagiarism scandal involving primary opponent Scott McInnis to capture the Republican nomination for governor.

To its credit, Politico added that some of these primary-winning candidates are "downright strange," which seems more than fair.

But there's one point I'd disagree with here. The crux of the piece is that the "offbeat" candidates are winning because they bring a non-traditional background to the table. This year, the argument goes, credible, relevant experience in public policy and/or government is a turnoff to voters seeking a wholesale break with the status quo.

That's not a bad argument, but I don't see the landscape this way. These bizarre candidates won major primary campaigns because of their far-right, often radical, ideologies. That they're coming from outside the world of government and politics is just gravy.

Did Linda McMahon win in Connecticut because she ran a wrestling company? No, she won because she spent a lot of money, and convinced Republicans her primary opponent was too moderate. Ken Buck won in Colorado for the same reason -- his party-preferred rival was deemed insufficiently right-wing. Dan Maes got a boost from McInnis' plagiarism scandal, but he capitalized because the party's base appreciated his extreme ideology.

And in Kentucky, Rand Paul didn't thrive because primary voters were impressed with his "outsider" ophthalmological background; they liked his radical worldview.

This isn't, in other words, a year for "offbeat" candidates to thrive; it's a year for right-wing candidates to win GOP primaries, without much regard for electability.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

TAX POLICIES AND PRIORITIES.... It's been odd to watch the striking shift in Republican rhetoric as it relates to economic priorities. Last year, the standard GOP line was that reducing the budget deficit, which they themselves had created, was the single most important goal for policymakers. This year, the new GOP line is that tax cuts for the wealthy are paramount, and the cost should just be added to that deficit Republicans pretended to care about last year.

jctchart.gif

Regardless, in the coming months, one of the key political battles will be over what, exactly, officials should do about the Bush-era tax policies that, by Republicans' design, are due to expire at the end of the year. President Obama and most Democrats are touting the same plan presented in the 2008 campaign: keep the lower rates for the middle class, while allowing the top rates for the rich to expire on schedule. For Republicans, that's not good enough -- those millionaires and billionaires need champions, and GOP leaders intend to fill the role.

The Washington Post has a good report, with an incredibly helpful chart, on just how much the GOP approach would cost: "A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday."

The study, completed by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, only looked at the effects for 2011, and they're pretty striking -- Republicans want to give millionaires and billionaires an average tax cut per household of about $100,000, every penny of which would be added to the deficit.

As a political matter, it's at least possible, if not likely, that the GOP feels so strongly about this that they'll block the Democratic plan (keeping the lower rates for those making less than $250,000) unless the majority goes along with the Republican plan (keeping the lower rates for the wealthy).

It sets up an interesting political fight in an election context -- Dems fighting for the middle class, while Republicans fight for the rich. In the wake of the GOP's opposition to the state-aid jobs bill, it creates a real opportunity for Democrats to reframe the parties' fundamental differences when it comes to economic priorities.

Indeed, take a good look at this chart the Post put together. (If you're having trouble reading it, click on it.) Notice that every single taxpayer making less than $250,000 is better off under the Democratic plan than the Republican plan, while the GOP approach overwhelmingly benefits millionaires and billionaires.

As working Americans struggle with a fragile recovery and high unemployment, Republican priorities -- fight for the rich at all costs -- not only seem radically out of touch, they also carry considerable political risks.

Referring to the GOP policy, Michael Tomasky concluded, "This is their agenda. If it's for millionaires, it's good. Period. It's never been quite this naked, but there it is. How the idiot Democrats are going to manage to lose to a bunch of people whose only real domestic agenda is to hand out $100,000 bills to millionaires, busting the budget while doing it, makes me sick to my stomach."

As I noted yesterday, it's not every day the two parties' approaches to government get spelled out so clearly, giving the public a stark choice between two very different ideologies.

Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

'THAT KIND OF TALK IS DANGEROUS'.... Choosing the craziest thing Sharron Angle has said can be a fun parlor game, but it's challenging to pick from her greatest hits collection. By any reasonable measure, though, Angle's remarks about armed insurrection against the United States government have to be right up there.

The Nevada Senate hopeful has, more than once, gone down this road. She's warned of Americans resorting to "Second Amendment remedies," and a month prior, declared, "[T]he nation is arming. If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?" Asked to defend the remarks, Angle has literally run away from journalists.

With this in mind, a new campaign ad from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) strikes me as very effective. It features Nevada police officer Bill Ames marveling at Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" rhetoric.

"It's crazy, but what she's actually talking about is armed resistance," Ames tells voters. "Look, I'm a member of the NRA, and a Republican. But that kind of talk is dangerous, and way too extreme."

It's a powerful indictment from a credible voice. I'm sure the Angle camp will come up with some kind of response, but a spot like this seems pretty devastating.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

OCTOBER 2008 REALLY WASN'T THAT LONG AGO.... Given mistaken public impressions, it's sometimes hard to know how President Obama's approval rating is as high as it is.

In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don't know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. [...]

Notably, there is no partisan divide on the question. Just 36% of Republicans, 35% of independents and 34% of Democrats know that the government bailout of banks and financial institutions was signed into law by former President Bush. And Democrats (46%) are just as likely as Republicans (50%) to say TARP was passed under Obama.

I can only assume that with so much criticism of the financial industry rescue coming from the right, the larger public concludes it must have been Obama's idea. After all, the theory goes, would so many Republican activists be this angry about a Republican proposal?

As a factual matter, yes. For the record, the Wall Street 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).

Noting the poll, published by Pew Research, Dave Weigel added yesterday, "[H]ere's a reminder that voters don't really know why they're so angry. If a pollster asked people to differentiate between TARP, which shoveled money to banks that we'll get back (perhaps), and the stimulus, which shoveled money to states and taxpayers (sort of), I bet he'd find a complete muddle."

Agreed. But it's this confusion that undermines the discourse, makes voters susceptible to demagoguery and bogus attack ads, and encourages Republicans to exploit Americans' short memories.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS IN NBC/WSJ POLL.... Nearly all recent national polling shows pretty much identical results -- a pessimistic public in a sour mood, unhappy with the leaders, parties, and personalities in Washington. To that extent, the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll doesn't offer much in the way of surprises.

But there were a few tidbits of note, particularly as the poll relates to the midterm elections.

President Obama's overall approval rating stands at 47%, up a little from the last poll, but his handling of the economy and the war in Afghanistan have lost public support. The public now supports the way he's dealt with the BP oil spill disaster, a turnaround from June, and overall, seven in 10 believe Obama has met or exceeded their expectations as president.

The rest of Washington fares much worse.

A combined 60 percent say that this year's Congress is either below average or one of the worst in history -- the highest percentage in the history of the NBC/WSJ poll... In addition, a whopping 72 percent disapprove of Congress' job.

The political parties don't fare much better. Just 33 percent have a positive view of the Democratic Party, versus 44 percent who have a negative view.

As for the Republican Party, only 24 percent see it positively -- the GOP's lowest-ever rating in the poll -- while 46 percent see it negatively. [emphasis added]

I continue to see this as one of the year's more important trends. As deeply unhappy as Americans are with the status quo, Republicans have not yet improved their public reputation or standing. In 1994 and 2006 -- the last two cycles in which the majority party lost both the House and Senate in the same cycle -- the minority party gained favor. This year, just three months before Election Day, the Republican Party's favorable rating is still at an all-time low.

In other words, the electorate would have to replace an unpopular party with an even more unpopular party. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's hardly a recipe for success, and it certainly doesn't constitute a popular mandate.

But before Democrats feel too good about the results, it's also worth noting the parties' standing on various issues. The public trusts Dems by fairly wide margins on protecting the environment, dealing with global warming, handling energy policy, providing oversight on Wall Street, dealing with natural disasters, dealing with health care, dealing with Social Security, and getting the country out of a recession.

Republicans, however, now enjoy an edge on dealing with the economy, dealing with immigration, dealing with taxes, dealing with Afghanistan, reducing the deficit, promoting values, controlling government spending, and combating terrorism.

In other words, the GOP leads on some of the issues most likely to drive the campaign cycle.

In terms of the generic ballot, the poll shows Democrats with a one-point lead, a small turnaround over the GOP's two-point lead since June, but that enthusiasm gap should remain a key point of concern for the majority -- "among those expressing a high interest in voting in November, the GOP's edge increases to 11 points, 50-39 percent."

That enthusiasm gap was much larger in June, but it's still a signal about the need for Democrats to generate some excitement among its rank and file.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 11, 2010

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The scope of the disaster in Pakistan may not be fully appreciated: "The United Nations is appealing for $459 million to provide immediate help to millions of flood victims in Pakistan. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said 'the worst monsoon-related floods in living memory' has affected more than 14 million people and at least six or seven million require immediate humanitarian assistance including food, clean water, shelter and medical care. It said over 1,200 people have died and at least 288,000 homes have been damaged or destroyed in the flooding."

* Making matters even worse: "The floods ravaging Pakistan are generating fears that Taliban insurgents could regroup amid the chaos and destruction. The country's already anemic economy is expected to weaken, increasing the poverty that is a factor in the militancy wracking the country."

* Petraeus wants more time; imagine that: "American military officials are building a case to minimize the planned withdrawal of some troops from Afghanistan starting next summer, in an effort to counter growing pressure on President Obama from inside his own party to begin winding the war down quickly."

* The U.S. Senate will convene briefly tomorrow to pass a resolution honoring former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and to "give unanimous consent for $600 million in emergency funding to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border."

* Five applicants for every one job opening in the U.S.

* The ads worked: "Higher-than-anticipated response rates and an overqualified temporary workforce helped the U.S. Census Bureau keep the 2010 Census at least $1.6 billion under budget, officials announced Tuesday."

* Paul Krugman explains the significance of the 10-year bond rate, and why it's low percentage matters.

* Oh good, David Horowitz has a new project "encouraging conservative college students to be officially troublesome."

* George W. Bush apparently used to refer to Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol as "the bomber boys." How very amusing.

* Andrew Sabl considers the similarities between President Obama's first two years, and President Reagan's first two years, in that both saw falling approval ratings coincide with rising unemployment. Sabl notes a key difference, however: "Millions of lives were ruined in the Reagan Recession. But Reagan's core supporters weren't the ones most affected, and their ideology helped them rationalize not caring about those who were affected. Democrats just aren't like that. The party's political problem isn't just unemployment. It's unemployment combined with being the party that avowedly cares about unemployment and whose members are likely to be feeling it."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

SHORT-TERM GAIN, LONG-TERM SACRIFICE.... When Republican leaders embraced partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, knowing full well that this isn't going to happen, it seemed pretty obvious that we were seeing a cynical, nativist, election-year scheme at work. The message wasn't even subtle -- the GOP is prepared to be just as reactionary as its base when it comes to immigration, even if that means going through the motions on giving the Constitution a little touch-up.

The goal is to win some votes in the short term. Harold Meyerson reminds us that the ploy -- and the larger effort behind it -- will very likely cost far more votes in the long term.

By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and, presumably, the children's children and so on down the line -- Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks' party in an increasingly multicolored land.

Absent a constitutional change -- to a lesser degree, even with it -- those prospects look mighty bleak. The demographic base of the Republican Party, as Ruy Teixeira demonstrates in a paper released by the Center for American Progress this summer, is shrinking as a share of the nation and the electorate. As the nation grows more racially and religiously diverse, Teixeira shows, its percentage of white Christians will decline to just 35 percent of the population by 2040.

The group that's growing fastest, of course, is Latinos. "Their numbers will triple to 133 million by 2050 from 47 million today," Teixeira writes, "while the number of non-Hispanic whites will remain essentially flat." Moreover, Latinos increasingly trend Democratic -- in a Gallup poll this year, 53 percent self-identified as Democrats; just 21 percent called themselves Republican.

I got the sense that the Bush/Cheney team was very cognizant of this. The Bush team proposed a fair and reasonable approach to comprehensive immigration reform; made an effort to promote ethnic diversity in the administration; and made sure the former president spent plenty of time doing outreach (and pretending to speak Spanish). The result was a very competitive contest for the Latino vote in 2004.

Those efforts appear to have been tossed aside entirely, replaced not only with cynicism and divisiveness, but sacrificing the Republican Party's future for immediate gain. It's less of a gamble and more of last-gasp strategy -- let's just get all the angry white votes we can get right now, the argument goes, even if it means driving a fast-growing minority away for a generation.

So, we get the 14th-Amendment talk from Republicans, as well as intense hostility for comprehensive reform, support for Arizona's odious anti-immigration law, etc.

It's not that GOP leaders aren't aware of the electoral trade-off, it's that they just don't seem to care.

Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

IF FEISAL ABDUL RAUF WAS FINE BEFORE, HE'S FINE NOW.... New York imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, best known as the man who hopes to build the Cordoba House in lower Manhattan, has been asked by the State Department to travel to the Middle East to assist with the government's diplomatic agenda in the region. Specifically, Rauf would talk about the ways in which Muslim Americans enjoy the same rights and respect that other Americans enjoy.

Congressional Republicans seem to be going out of their way to prove a point about undermining these American ideals.

"It is unacceptable that US taxpayers are being forced to fund Feisal Abdul Rauf's trip to the Middle East," say Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) of Florida and Peter King (R) of New York in a statement issued Tuesday. "This radical is a terrible choice to be one of the faces or our country overseas. The USA should be using public diplomacy programs to combat extremism," they add, "not to endorse it."

"This radical"? Adam Serwer notes the key detail here: the State Department has "a long-term relationship" with Rauf -- which included the Bush administration sending him on a similar tour.

Oddly, Republicans didn't complain when the Bush/Cheney State Department partnered with "this radical" to help with our diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. This isn't complicated -- if Bush considered Feisal Abdul Rauf a valuable American voice and representative, there's no reason for the GOP to freak out now.

I'm reminded again of Jeffrey Goldberg's item from last week: "I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country."

The sooner Republicans stop looking at a moderate imam, committed to fighting radicalism, as an enemy, the sooner they'll stop inadvertently helping the goals of terrorists.

It'd be awfully nice if mainstream American imams could go to the Middle East with a positive message about freedom and respect in the U.S., and not have to struggle to make excuses for the right.

Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

PAUL'S ACCUSER CLARIFIES, BUT STORY'S LARGELY THE SAME.... Yesterday, Rand Paul, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, appeared on Fox News, at least in part to address the interest in the "Aqua Buddha" matter. As the story goes, a fellow student told GQ Paul allegedly kidnapped a fellow student, tried to force her to take bong hits, and forced her to participate in a bizarre ritual involving an "Aqua Buddha," which Paul apparently worshiped, at least while high.

Paul refused to go into any details, but during the Fox News interview, he repeatedly denied having been part of any kidnapping.

Today, Greg Sargent talked to the woman who shared the anecdote in the first place. She said she didn't mean to imply she was kidnapped "in a legal sense," but the crux of the story seems to be largely the same.

"The whole thing has been blown out of proportion," she told me. "They didn't force me, they didn't make me. They were creating this drama: 'We're messing with you.'"

The woman said that much of the subsequent coverage of her allegations missed a key nuance: As a participant in a college ritual, where lines between acquiescence and victimization are often blurry, she was largely playing along with the notion that she was being forced to follow Paul's orders.

"I went along because they were my friends," she said. "There was an implicit degree of cooperation in the whole thing. I felt like I was being hazed."

Even in the GQ article, there was no sense that this woman had been part of some kind of violent assault. Reading it, one got the impression that Paul and a buddy, high as a kite, thought it'd be funny to pull some stupid stunt with a friend from the swim team.

In her remarks to Greg, that version seems entirely intact. As she explained it, Paul tied her up, took her to his apartment, and encouraged her to take bong hits, but she wasn't literally forced to do drugs. As for the even sillier part, Paul and his friend really did take her "out to this creek and made me worship Aqua Buddha." The whole thing screams "inane hazing ritual."

After the incident, the woman apparently decided she didn't want to be friends with Rand Paul anymore. Imagine that.

So, what have we learned? Other than the fact that Paul is kind of a strange guy? That he was engaged in a stupid college prank involving drugs and faux-Buddhism.

I still don't know why the bizarre candidate didn't just issue a statement from the outset: "Like a lot of people, I was part of some silly stunts as a teenager, but I certainly never hurt anyone. This was all a long time ago and I've matured since."

In any case, this seems to be petering out, and probably won't change many votes anyway. Rest assured, though, Paul's bound to get caught up in some mess again fairly soon. Maybe someone can ask him if he considers the Third Amendment anti-military or something.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS IN CULTURE-WAR POLL.... CNN released the results of an interesting poll (pdf) today, gauging public attitudes on some of the hot-button cultural issues that have been in the news of late. Some of the results were more encouraging than others.

Let's start with the bad news. The poll asked, for example, about the Republican drive to repeal at least part of the 14th Amendment.

As you may know, the Constitution says that all children born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens regardless of their parents' status. Would you favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment to prevent children born here from becoming U.S. citizens unless their parents are also U.S. citizens?

Favor 49%
Oppose 51%
No opinion 1%

That's depressingly a high number for a basic American principle. Looking through the crosstabs, self-identified Democrats oppose a new amendment by a wide margin (61%-39%), Republicans are nearly as strong in the other direction (40%-58%), and Independents are evenly split. Only one region -- the South -- has more supporters of an amendment than opponents.

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?

Favor 29%
Oppose 68%
No opinion 3%

Opposition spanned genders, races, age, income levels, party ID, regions, and education levels. Literally the only constituency in this poll that favors the Cordoba House are self-identified liberals, and even within this group, it was close -- 51% to 45%.

That's the bad news, and it reflects the kind of intolerance that's often associated with times of economic distress. There is, however, some good news in the poll.

Do you favor or oppose a bill in which the federal government would provide 26 billion dollars to state governments to pay for Medicaid benefits and the salaries of public school teachers or other government workers?

Favor 60%
Oppose 38%
No opinion 2%

In other words, the public is broadly on board with a Democratic agenda item that nearly every Republican in Congress fought to kill.

Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?

Yes 52%
No 46%
No opinion 2%

That's pretty amazing, and marks a rather dramatic rise in the level of support for marriage equality. There are clear partisan differences -- a clear majority of Dems and Indys support, a clear majority of Republicans oppose -- but perhaps the most striking result was the gender gap.

In all, women support same-sex marriage by an overwhelming margin (67%-32%), while men oppose it by a similar margin (37%-61%). It's the widest gender gap on any of the other questions in the poll.

Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

EVEN NOW, BIRTHERS CAN STILL THRIVE.... Far-right hysterics over President Obama's citizenship don't generate quite as much attention as they used to. But it's worth keeping in mind that while the ridiculous conspiracy theory has been thoroughly discredited, those who still believe the nonsense can still win elections.

Michael Tomasky highlights, for example, former Rep. Nathan Deal, who won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Georgia yesterday.

Deal, meanwhile, until recently a member of Congress, is best known in Washington for having sent President Obama a letter demanding his birth certificate.

Some call Deal an avowed birther, others merely say he's birther-curious. Whichever, it can't but help him in Georgia, one figures, where ... he'll be facing Democrat Roy Barnes.

Dave Weigel added that Deal was arguably "the Republican most responsive to the conspiracy theory," and marveled that "dipping a toe into the birtherism fever swamp didn't stop Deal from winning a statewide primary."

And that's really the key here. Birtherism should be a career killer, much the same way 9/11 Truthers are immediately discredited in the eyes of the American mainstream. But it's not -- Deal hasn't faced any negative consequences for his ridiculous efforts at all.

In related news, Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.), often known as "Birther Bill," is still sponsoring legislation requiring presidential candidates to produce copies of their birth certificates. Matt Finkelstein noted today that Posey's bill cites "section 5 of article II of the Constitution," which is interesting because there is no Article II, Section 5. Article II only has 4 sections.

And yet, Rep. Bill Posey will probably win re-election anyway.

While we're at it, let's also note that Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, a Republican congressional candidate in Michigan, recently told a group of voters, "You have a president that seems to be, um ... well ... I don't know if he even has been born in the United States, but ... until I see a birth certificate."

I'd hoped we'd reached the point where nonsense like this would mean immediate public humiliation. Alas, that's not the case.

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

WHAT WILL ARMEY'S FRIENDS THINK?.... Yesterday, USA Today ran an editorial explaining that fears over Social Security's future are unfounded. Complaints about long-term financing are misleading, the editorial board concluded, and the right's privatization talk is misguided: "Social Security is, among other things, the nation's most effective anti-poverty program, and when the markets crash, the elderly shouldn't crash with them."

In the interest of "balance," the paper also ran an opposing piece from former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), now the head of a right-wing lobbying group called FreedomWorks and an organizer of Tea Party rallies.

The palaver was pretty familiar. Armey suggests the entire Social Security system is becoming "generational theft," and recommends dismantling it through privatization.

Workers should have the choice about whether they want to remain in the current system or invest in a personal saving retirement account, which would allow them to have complete control over their retirements funds and pass the remaining balance to family members. Let's have Social Security compete against other investment options. [...]

With U.S. lawmakers proposing tax hikes and benefit cuts to Social Security, the program is increasingly becoming a bad deal for workers and retirees. Americans should be free to choose an optional personal retirement account that allows them to take their retirement into their own hands.

That Dick Armey hates Social Security and wants to privatize it doesn't exactly qualify as stop-the-presses news. The notion that there are right-wing fools pushing these schemes in the wake of an economic crash seems ridiculous, but Armey's reputation for shamelessness is well deserved.

But here's my question: as Armey travels the country and endorses favored candidates, are they asked if they're on board with his assessment? Armey has positioned himself as one of the year's major Republican boosters. Do they also believe that Social Security is a "bad deal," which should be privatized to prevent "generational theft"?

A congressional candidate in Florida accepted Armey's endorsement yesterday. A candidate in New York did the same today. Candidates in key contests in Texas, Colorado, Wisconsin, and the state of Washington have all recently embraced Armey's backing. There literally isn't a state in the Union without an Armey-backed candidate this year.

Are they all on board with Armey's Social Security extremism? Maybe someone should ask them.

Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

WH ECONOMIST: BOEHNER 'WANTS A LOT OF PEOPLE TO LOSE THEIR JOBS'.... On "Meet the Press" the other day, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) talked quite a bit about his desire to cut spending. Host David Gregory asked Boehner to be a little more specific, and not surprisingly, the GOP leader had a little trouble.

The only vaguely substantive point Boehner could offer was this: "Why don't we stop the stimulus spending? There's still about $400 billion or $500 billion of the stimulus plan that has not been spent."

As a factual matter, that's clearly wrong, and further evidence that Boehner, when it comes to policy, has no real idea what he's talking about. But as he and other Republican leaders talk up the notion of scrapping "unspent" stimulus funds, it's also worth keeping in mind what the consequences of such a move would entail.

Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden's chief economist, posted an item to the White House blog this morning, making the point in a provocative way.

John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs.

We were awfully surprised to hear Rep. Boehner come out for killing jobs en masse in his own state and district by stopping the Recovery Act on last Sunday's news shows.

Though we're sure he didn't know it, the Congressman is advocating to kill the expansion of the Butler County Community Health Center and bring some of the twenty-five highway projects across the district to a grinding halt. Across the state of Ohio, he said that approximately 4 million working families should get an unexpected cut in their paycheck as the Making Work Pay tax credit disappears, unemployed workers should go without unemployment benefits, and major Ohio road projects like the US-33 Nelsonville Bypass project and the Cleveland Innerbelt Modernization project should be stalled or stopped. Oh, and some of the more than 100 clean energy Recovery projects employing workers across the state should be shut down.

Now, Bernstein's point was to emphasize the fact that there really aren't "unspent" stimulus funds just lying around. Nearly every penny is going to tax cuts, investments that have already been made, or projects that are already under contract. When it comes to that final 6% of the overall Recovery Act, the award process is nearly complete or the contracts are being finalized. Boehner's talking point on "Meet the Press" was patently ridiculous.

But nearly as important is the way Bernstein presented the argument: "John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs."

That's both true and the kind of sharp-but-fair language the White House needs to use this campaign season. If it were me, I'd probably use the word "Republican" more than "Boehner" -- most voters probably have no idea who John Boehner is -- but the point is sharp elbows are more likely to leave a bruise.

If Democrats are really lucky, Boehner's office will throw a fit, and we can watch a lengthy debate unfold over whether it's appropriate or inappropriate for a White House economist to say the House Republican leader wants Americans to lose their jobs.

Steve Benen 12:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

A FULLER PICTURE OF TED STEVENS.... I wasn't altogether sure what to say about the death of former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) yesterday, which is why I ended up not doing a post. Obviously, the plane crash was a terrible accident, and my heart goes out to Stevens' family and friends, as well as those close to the crash's other victims.

That said, as much as Stevens was a giant for the state of Alaska, his tenure in the Senate for four decades was not necessarily a positive one. With his passing, it's perhaps worth pausing to get a better, more complete sense of Stevens' legacy.

With that in mind, I'm flagging a couple of items from the Monthly's archives. The first is this 2007 piece from Charlie Homans, explaining how Stevens became both an enabler and a prisoner of an insatiable Alaskan addiction to federal largess, which was a consequence of the state's decision to abolish both income and sales taxes. With fewer resources available locally, Stevens relied on pork and earmarks to provide for Alaska's needs.

The second is this 2005 piece from Ben Wallace-Wells, which highlights Stevens' work on a loophole in federal procurement law that allowed Native Alaskan tribal corporations to win no-bid federal contracts. Stevens' work ultimately created well-paying jobs, not for Native Alaskans, but for whites in Fairbanks and Northern Virginia and opportunities for big defense firms partnering with these corporations to get around competitive bidding statutes, which in turn raised the cost of federal contracts.

The stories aren't especially flattering, but as Stevens' legacy becomes the focus of additional attention, it's worth noting how the senator tried to do right by his constituents, and in the process, wound up creating Alaska's damaging dependence on federal spending that has undermined the spirit of "independence" that Alaskans still think their state exemplifies.

Steve Benen 12:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* Yesterday's cliffhanger in Georgia's Republican gubernatorial primary appears to have been resolved. This morning, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel reportedly conceded to former Rep. Nathan Deal, who appears to have won by less than 1%. Deal will face former Gov. Roy Barnes (D) in November.

* Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I) will attend a fundraising event tonight hosted by Clinton campaign aides Mark Penn and Nancy Jacobson, suggesting increasing Democratic support for the former Republican in this year's Senate race.

* Speaking of Florida, if you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, the pollster shows Crist edging Marco Rubio (R) by one if Jeff Greene is the Democratic nominee, but trailing Rubio by five if Rep. Kendrick Meek wins the Dem primary.

* In his first television ad of the cycle, Rep. Charlie Melancon, the Democratic Senate nominee in Louisiana, tells voters that Sen. David Vitter (R) "hasn't been honest with Louisiana." Melancon adds, "I'm a pro-life, pro-gun Louisiana Democrat. I've been a businessman most of my life.... I'll work with anyone, if it's the right thing to do for Louisiana."

* In Ohio, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R) leading this year's open Senate race, topping Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) by seven, 43% to 36%. The poll also shows a considerable enthusiasm gap benefiting the GOP.

* In the state of Washington, which has a top-two, multi-candidate primary, SurveyUSA shows Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading Dino Rossi (R) , 41% to 33%. Both are expected to be the finalists next week, and will face off, head to head, in November.

* And in Indiana, Rasmussen shows corporate lobbyist Dan Coats (R) trouncing Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) in this year's Senate race, 50% to 29%.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share

EVEN IF THE RATES LAPSE, THE WEALTHY STILL GET A CUT.... One facet of the debate over Bush-era tax policies has been a little misleading.

When Republicans originally lowered the rates, they set the breaks to expire in 2010. Democrats now proposed keeping the cuts for the middle class, but letting the lower rates for the wealthy expire. Republicans counter that the richest Americans needed protecting, even if it adds $700 billion to the deficit.

But the detail that's often overlooked is that the wealthy won't go back to paying pre-Bush rates, even if their tax breaks expire -- because tax rates are marginal, if Dems keep lower rates in place for the middle class, the rich will still benefit.

As debate heats up over President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy but to extend them for everyone else, a nonpartisan Congressional analysis circulated on Capitol Hill on Tuesday provides a look at the impact the plan would have on high-income taxpayers.

Given the progressive nature of the federal income tax system, in which tax rates increase with income, even the richest households would continue to pay the four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income, under the approach being pushed by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.

The president has vowed to extend the tax cuts for individuals with less than $200,000 in annual taxable income and couples with less than $250,000 -- about 98 percent of American households. About 315,000 households report adjusted gross income of $1 million or more.

Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001, according to the analysis, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Got that? The lower rates will still be applied to the first $250,000 the wealthy earn, meaning they won't return to pre-Bush levels.

In other words, as far as the richest Americans are concerned, this is a debate over how big a break over the 2001 rates they'll get. Democrats, by looking out for the middle class, would offer a tax cut worth about $6,300 to the wealthy, while Republicans insist that's not nearly generous enough for those poor high-income earners.

For both parties, the dispute has become a defining one as they hone campaign arguments heading toward November.

Speaking of Republicans at a fund-raiser in a wealthy community near Dallas on Monday, Mr. Obama told Democratic donors, "What you see is a governing philosophy on their part that basically comes down to 'We're going to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us' -- folks who don't need those tax cuts and weren't even asking for them, which would cost $700 billion."

Yep, that's about right.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

AN UNLIKELY LAME-DUCK CRITIC.... Republican activism in opposition to a lame-duck session on the Hill this year has been pretty strong of late. The notion that the Democratic majority might try to legislate after the November elections -- the way the GOP has in years past -- has fueled a coordinated effort from the Republican Study Committee, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and assorted Tea Party groups.

Yesterday, they picked up an unexpected ally.

Sen. Russ Feingold became Tuesday the first Democrat to denounce the lame-duck session, saying such work periods "are sometimes used to consider extremely controversial policies."

"By allowing votes just after an election but before the newly elected Congress takes office, lame-duck sessions provide an opportunity to override the public's will as expressed at the ballot box," said the Wisconsin lawmaker, who is up for re-election this year.

"Rather than schedule a lame-duck session this year, Congress should complete its work before the upcoming elections," he said in a statement.

I realize Russ Feingold can be idiosyncratic at times. I also realize he's up for re-election this year, and is in the midst of a surprisingly difficult race.

But endorsing the right-wing campaign against a lame-duck session is pretty odd. "Override the public's will"? That's the GOP line, but it's literally backwards -- voters went to the ballot box in 2008 to elect lawmakers to fill out a specified term. That term doesn't end the first week in November, just because Republicans wish it did.

"Congress should complete its work before the upcoming elections"? That's a great idea. Maybe if the same Republicans who oppose a lame-duck session would let the majority schedule the necessary votes, that might actually happen. And if it doesn't, lame-duck sessions exist so that lawmakers can complete unfinished work.

Also yesterday, Feingold launched a new radio ad, insisting that he's more conservative on guns than his right-wing opponent.

I can only assume Feingold is deeply worried about November.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE WE SHOULD PARSE THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'KIDNAPPING'.... On Monday, we learned a bit more about Rand Paul, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, and his colorful history. In particular, a GQ profile noted a college incident in which Paul allegedly kidnapped a fellow student, tried to force her to take bong hits, and forced her to participate in a bizarre ritual involving an "Aqua Buddha."

Soon after, Paul's campaign threatened to sue GQ, but never quite got around to denying the substance of the anecdote.

Yesterday, the right-wing ophthalmologist appeared on Fox News to help knock the story down. Paul seemed reluctant to talk about the incident in question, and said he couldn't remember "everything" he did in college. I suppose that's especially true of his antics while high.

Paul did say, however, "I will categorically deny that I ever kidnapped anyone or forced anybody to use drugs." He made an almost-identical declaration more than once during the on-air appearance, at one point saying, "I, I think I would remember if I kidnapped something -- kidnapped someone -- and I don't remember, and I absolutely deny kidnapping anyone ever."

Now that's a winning campaign slogan if I've ever heard one.

What's interesting about this is the specificity of the denial. According to the woman GQ quoted, Paul and a friend came to her home, "blindfolded" her, tied her up, and drove her to their apartment. Paul didn't say the incident never occurred, or that this story is entirely made up, he's simply insisting he never kidnapped anyone.

Maybe, in Paul's mind, this was just a harmless prank? If there was no ransom, and he always intended to take her home unharmed anyway, then it doesn't really count as literal "kidnapping"?

To be sure, as I said the other day, I don't really care what Paul, or any other congressional candidates, did in college. If Paul told Neil Cavuto yesterday, "I pulled plenty of stupid stunts as a teenager, many of which I regret, but that was a long time ago and I've matured since," it'd probably end the story. But that's not what Paul said.

Part of the relevance is also driven by just how little we know about Rand Paul. He's a leading candidate for the U.S. Senate this year, but all the public really knows is that he's a strange guy with extremist political beliefs who's never held public office, created his own medical accreditation board, opposes most of the landmark legislative accomplishments of the last century, and apparently did some bizarre stuff in college.

Voters may not care whether Rand Paul worshiped an "Aqua Buddha" in college, but they may care that he's an exceedingly weird dude now.

Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

Bookmark and Share

THE KIND OF VOTE TO BUILD AN ELECTION AROUND.... Yesterday, a week after the Senate acted, the House approved a state-aid jobs bill, which President Obama signed into law last night. This is generating a fair amount of attention -- the prospect of hundreds of thousands of job losses right now, including as many as 160,000 school teachers, is bound to raise eyebrows -- but the scope of this single bill may not be fully appreciated just yet.

The public is probably pretty accustomed to Republican lawmakers balking at every piece of legislation, and this jobs bill fit into the larger pattern -- 98.8% of House Republicans opposed the measure, as did 95% of Senate Republicans.

And while it's relatively easy for the GOP to spin near-unanimous opposition to contentious measures like health care reform and fixing a broken student loan system, the votes on the state-aid package are far harder for the public to stomach. We're talking about a common-sense package -- which lowered, not raised, the deficit -- to save middle-class jobs. Voters can be fickle and unpredictable at times, but most folks tend to like school teachers, firefighters, and police officers.

For reasons that are hard to explain, congressional Republicans labeled them "special interests," unworthy of rescue. The same GOP leaders who concluded that Wall Street deserved a bailout at a time of crisis, decided teachers and cops didn't.

Digby noted yesterday, "I do hope the Democrats are paying close attention to this because it might just save their bacon if they play their cards right."

I'm telling you, this is where the vulnerable underbelly of their "just say no" campaign. They are voting against nice, white, suburban middle class Americans this time (along with nice brown and black suburban middle class Americans) with this crusade. And going after teachers, cops and firefighters is a very, very dangerous thing to do. And as I wrote before, the Democrats should throw it right in their face.

If they don't, they're missing an opportunity.

Note that House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) was asked on ABC yesterday how his party would have saved these thousands of jobs, including 3,600 in his home state of Indiana. Pence didn't answer, because he couldn't -- the Republican plan was to let those jobs disappear, and then blame President Obama when the economy got worse. (It's the same with the rescue of the American auto industry -- the GOP plan wasn't to save it in some other way; the GOP plan was to let it die.)

The campaign ads seem to write themselves in a situation like this. Indeed, this is a debate to build an election around -- with a struggling economy, Democrats proposed a fiscally-responsible plan to save hundreds of thousands of jobs, specifically helping our local schools. Republicans said we can afford tax cuts for billionaires, but not teachers' jobs.

It's not every day the two parties' approaches to government get spelled out so clearly, giving the public a stark choice between two very different ideologies.

Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE MARK KIRK.... There are plenty of conservative Republican lawmakers I find perplexing, but that's generally because I struggle to relate to their worldview and the way in which they process information. When it comes to Rep. Mark Kirk, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois, however, I just don't understand what he's thinking.

Here's Kirk on Monday...

Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk says he's inclined to vote for a $26 billion jobs bill that Democrats are pushing.

Kirk is a congressman from Chicago's northern suburbs. He was headed back to Washington for Tuesday's vote on the bill, which is expected to keep teachers as well as state and local government workers from losing their jobs.

On Monday, Kirk called the measure deficit neutral and said it would keep teachers in the classroom.

...and here's Kirk literally one day later.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk voted against a $26 billion jobs bill Tuesday, a day after signaling he would vote for it.

On Monday, Kirk told reporters in Chicago that he was "inclined" to support the Democratic-backed legislation that provides aid to schools and states because it included cuts that made it "deficit-neutral and would keep teachers in the classroom."

But the five-term North Shore congressman said upon closer inspection, he decided to vote against it because he thinks it will increase the federal deficit.

Look, this isn't complicated. The Congressional Budget Office found that the state-aid jobs bill would reduce the deficit -- that's not a typo; reduce the deficit -- by $1.4 billion over the next decade. Voting against it because of deficit concerns doesn't make any sense.

And on Monday, Kirk seemed to understand this. The bill didn't change, and those teachers' jobs still needed saving. Citing deficit concerns doesn't make any sense when voting on a bill that, as Kirk noted the day before, doesn't increase the deficit.

It's enough to make one wonder if there's just something wrong with Mark Kirk. I don't necessarily mean that to be snarky; it's just that the things he says and does are so odd, his decisions seem inexplicable.

When describing his own background, Kirk seems to tell falsehoods almost uncontrollably. When it comes to his personal life, Kirk's ex-wife recently argued that the congressman is being controlled by a right-wing "Svengali figure" who was responsible for breaking up their marriage.

It's not unreasonable for voters to wonder if Kirk would be better off in therapy than in the Senate.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

DUST SETTLES AFTER MULTI-STATE PRIMARIES.... Yesterday was arguably the biggest primary day in months, with key contests, up and down the ballot, in Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, and Minnesota. As the dust settles, and yesterday's results become clearer, it looks like the White House and Democratic Party campaign committees have reason to smile.

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, who have been starved for good news through much of 2010, finally received a generous helping Tuesday night.

Republicans, meanwhile, were left with several new reasons to wonder whether all the favorable national trends showing up in polls are enough to overcome local candidates who are inspiring little confidence about their readiness for the general election twelve weeks from now.

In each of the four states that held primaries Tuesday, the GOP either nominated or gave an overnight lead to candidates tarnished by scandal, gaffes or some other significant vulnerability.

Let's take the states one at a time.

Colorado

In what was arguably yesterday's marquee matchup, appointed Sen. Michael Bennet faced off against former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in a heated Democratic primary. Bennett enjoyed the support of President Obama and the party establishment, while Romanoff touted support from President Clinton and many progressive activists. Bennet came out on top, exceeding expectations in his first-ever race, winning by 8.4%. He'll face right-wing county prosecutor Ken Buck, who narrowly defeated former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, the choice of the party leadership, in a Republican primary.

In the gubernatorial race, anti-bicycle neophyte Dan Maes somehow managed to beat former Rep. Scott McInnis in a Republican primary. He'll face Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D), and in all likelihood, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (I) in November.

Connecticut

Former Rep. Rob Simmons' off-again/on-again Senate campaign came to an end last night when he lost to former wrestling company executive Linda McMahon in a Republican primary. That suits Democrats just fine, since they were far more afraid of Simmons in November. State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is the Democratic nominee.

In the gubernatorial primaries, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy scored a surprising 15-point win over Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary, and he'll face George W. Bush's Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, who narrowly beat Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele in a Republican primary. Again, Dems preferred to face Foley, who's not only burdened by allegations stemming from a messy divorce, but by a wildly exaggerated record about his work with Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority.

Georgia

In a Republican gubernatorial run-off that generated the interest of likely GOP presidential candidates, the results are still too close to call. Rep. Nathan Deal has the narrowest of leads over Secretary of State Karen Handel, but neither is claiming victory just yet, and neither is conceding. The winner will take on former Gov. Roy Barnes (D) in November.

Minnesota

In a very competitive Democratic (technically, DFL) gubernatorial primary, former Sen. Mark Dayton appears to have narrowly defeated state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, though the latter has not yet conceded. Right-wing state Rep. Tom Emmer is the GOP nominee.

Overall, I imagine the Tea Party crowd is rather pleased this morning, with many of its preferred candidates faring well yesterday, but their satisfaction is no doubt cold comfort to the Republican establishment. Indeed, looking ahead, Democratic leaders feel reasonably confident about nearly all of the statewide contests set up by yesterday's results.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 10, 2010

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The Federal Reserve's confidence in the economic recovery has faded to the point that it will now "use the proceeds from its huge mortgage-bond portfolio to buy long-term Treasury securities."

* Paul Krugman reacts: "The Fed's current policy is grossly inadequate, logically bizarre, and slightly -- but only slightly -- encouraging.... [I]t was, literally, the least the Fed could do."

* A plane crash in Alaska this morning claimed the life of former Sen. Ted Stevens (R). Former NASA chief Sean O'Keefe was on board the same flight, but is believed to have survived.

* Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) doesn't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.

* In Afghanistan, the number of civilians being killed rose 25% in the first six months of 2010, mostly at the hands of Taliban insurgents.

* Good public health news: "The H1N1 pandemic has officially ended, the World Health Organization declared Tuesday." Don't underestimate the importance of competent government agencies acting effectively.

* The House today approved a $600 million border security bill, but some jurisdictional issues means the Senate will have to vote on it again. The Senate interrupting its August recess to approve the measure is a possibility.

* Google and Verizon voice support for rules that would limit net neutrality when it comes to mobile phones.

* Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) is reportedly resting comfortably after surgery today to remove his gallbladder.

* This really isn't a healthy development: "Americans now owe more in student loans than they do on their credit cards."

* How misguided is the Republican campaign against the 14th Amendment? Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano blasted GOP leaders on the air today.

* And this isn't especially political, but I absolutely loved the story about a young woman quitting her job through 33 cleverly-written erase-board messages. [Update: Darn, it's a hoax. It was amusing, but alas, it wasn't true. Sorry.]

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

CORDOBA HOUSE 'COMPROMISE' HAS SOME SERIOUS FLAWS.... New York Gov. David Paterson (D), hoping to resolve the political dispute over the proposed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, is floating a possible compromise.

Paterson agreed that there is "no reason" why the Cordoba House shouldn't be built at the site known as Park51. But in light of political response from conservatives, the governor is open to state intervention to help explore alternatives. "Frankly, if the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance that would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling among the people who are frustrated," Paterson said, "I would look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need."

A whole host of reasons come to mind as to why this is a bad idea. Greg Sargent highlights some of the more glaring problems.

First, it puts Mayor Bloomberg in a weird spot. The mayor, you may recall, eloquently defended the religious freedom of the developers and stood up for their right to build on a site of their choosing in the face of withering national criticism. Now the governor's position is that, yes, there's something to that religious freedom thing, but let's give away some state land to make the whole mess go away? What is Bloomberg supposed to say in response? I'm told City Hall won't be commenting on the governor's idea.

Second, let's say for the sake of argument that the center's developers would support this scheme. Who gets to decide how far away from Ground Zero is an appropriate distance, and why should they be accorded that power? Should the governor appoint Sarah Palin or Abraham Foxman to a newly-created post of Mosque Exclusion Zone Czar?

Third, this sets an awful precedent. Other religious groups in New York will be asking why they aren't being given state land to build their own cultural centers. Will the state cheerfully throw free land at the next group whose plans spark controversy?

I'd add just one that Greg missed: it might very well be unconstitutional.

Constitutional law experts can speak to this with far more authority than I can, but as I recall from my years at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, houses of worship and centers built by faith groups are private property -- as they should be.

As part of a religiously-neutral government, courts don't necessarily look kindly at states handing over public land for the construction of private religious facilities. To be sure, New York could sell the developers of the Cordoba House state land for their community center, but it couldn't show them any favoritism against other groups that might want to purchase the same property, and it certainly couldn't "provide them with the state property they would need."

Besides, part of the point of the particular Park51 site is for Feisal Abdul Rauf and his partners to cater to a local community. If they wanted a property in some other part of New York, they wouldn't be trying to purchase this spot.

Paterson's compromise may be well intended, but it's a step in the wrong direction.

Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

STATE-AID JOBS BILL ON ITS WAY TO THE OVAL OFFICE.... Late last week, the Senate overcame a Republican filibuster and passed a state aid package, including $10 billion to save the jobs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers, and $16.1 billion in state Medicaid funding (FMAP). The package, which is fully paid for, passed 61 to 38, with all but two Republicans in opposition.

The House interrupted its August recess to come back to the House today, specifically to vote on this bill in emergency session. There was some talk that antsy Dems might balk at the notion of additional spending -- even to save hundreds of thousands of jobs -- but when the dust cleared this afternoon, the House had done the right thing.

The House on Tuesday approved 247-161 a $26 billion state-aid bill that will funnel $10 billion to education funding and $16 billion to Medicaid.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) contends the legislation will save or create 319,000 jobs, which includes positions for teachers, police officers and firefighters.

Republican opposition pointed primarily to the bill closing a loophole that currently allows U.S. multinational companies to take advantage of foreign tax credits.

President Obama, who'd been lobbying for the legislation, will reportedly sign the measure into law tonight. What's more, the White House blog has an item touting the significance of the bill.

All told, as many as 900,000 public and private sector jobs could have been lost if this bill weren't passed -- the last thing our economy needs. Keeping these Americans at work, whether they are teachers in the classroom or police keeping our streets safe, will also help ensure that the economic recovery keeps moving forward. With the House and Senate both having passed this legislation now, the President will sign it quickly.

Update: In a statement, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine raises a noteworthy point: "There could not be a better example of the differences in priorities between Republicans and Democrats than this legislation. While Democrats are working to help preserve the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters, police officers and others, Republicans continue to obstruct legislation while supporting tax cuts that would only benefit Wall Street CEOs and other wealthy Americans. Even after Democrats made every effort to reach out to GOP lawmakers, Republicans fought tooth-and-nail against this critical legislation -- refusing to help those who continue to struggle because of the failed Republican economic policies of the past. This stark difference in priorities could not be more clear to the American people, who now have yet another reminder of which party is on their side."

Second Update: Here's the roll call. Only two Republicans voted for the jobs bill, while 158 opposed it. Among Dems, 245 supported the measure, while three Blue Dogs voted against it.

Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

ABOUT THAT AMERICAN CROSSROADS POLL.... One of the lead stories from Politico this morning was about a new poll from one of Karl Rove's operations. It's generated some additional attention, so I suppose it's worth noting why it's hard to take the results seriously.

The survey claims to offer proof that Republicans may be able to win 10 Senate seats this November, thus claiming a majority next year. There are a couple of problems here.

The first is that the poll, conducted for American Crossroads -- a group launched in part by Rove and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie -- combines results from different states to make inferences about specific contests. Dave Weigel noted how misguided this is.

Does anyone buy this? An "average" poll number across states with Senate races is not worthless, but it's close. In Delaware, Arkansas, and Indiana, Republican candidates have better than double-digit leads over the Democrats. In Florida, Democratic candidates Kendrick Meek and Jeff Greene are basically also-rans, as Democrats gravitate to independent candidate Charlie Crist.

So you've got one 25-point lead (I'm guessing, based on other polls in Florida) warping the first five results, and three leads of 10 to 20 points warping the other eight results. If we had all the numbers we'd confirm what we already know -- that Republicans can waltz into three (four, if you add North Dakota) open Democratic seats, but that the other 10 competitive Senate races are toss-ups. The poll averaging on messaging is more interesting, as all but three of these states voted for the Obama-Biden ticket. But the purpose of the poll is to take something that political junkies think -- that sometimes, every close race breaks the challenger party's way -- and make it look like science.

Quite right. But there's something else that bothered me about the credibility of the poll. This paragraph in the Politico piece seemed to make the rest of the article unimportant.

The Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies conducted the poll, testing 1,300 likely voters across the 13 states, for a small state-by-state sample of 100 respondents. That means that for the individual races, the survey's margin of error is so wide as to render the results effectively meaningless. [emphasis added]

There's simply no credible way to argue that a Republican pollster can survey 100 people in a state and offer worthwhile data about a competitive Senate race. That's just silly.

This isn't a poll so much as it's a Karl Rove press stunt. I'm not dismissing the notion that significant Republican gains in the Senate are possible; I'm dismissing this poll as lacking all merit.

Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE KNOCKS DOWN GOP LAME-DUCK EFFORT.... When a member of the U.S. House takes the oath at the beginning of a Congress, lawmakers get to serve a two-year term. This includes the couple of months after the following election, generally known as the "lame-duck" period.

When there was a Republican majority, GOP officials loved using lame-duck sessions. Wouldn't you know it, their attitudes have evolved now that they're in the minority.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee and one of Congress' more humiliating buffoons, has been absolutely petrified of what might happen in a lame-duck session this year. Price expects Republicans to do very well in November, and is demanding that once the elections are complete, Democrats promise not to even try to do any work after the first week in November -- even if there's unfinished business that needs to be completed.

Democrats have, not surprisingly, mocked the Republican idea that every member of Congress deserves a two-month, taxpayer-paid break, with one aide telling Sam Stein yesterday that Price's resolution has been dubbed the "Republican Winter Vacation Act."

Tea Partiers, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and Newt Gingrich all rallied in support of Price's measure, which came to the House floor today. It failed.

House Democrats on Tuesday beat back a GOP attempt to lock them out of a lame-duck session after the midterm elections in November. [...]

Price's resolution was ruled out of order by the presiding officer on the grounds that it did not meet the criteria of affecting the conduct of individual members or the House as a whole. The chair also ruled it violated House rules prohibiting privileged resolutions invoked "to prescribe a special order of business for the House." [...]

Price asked for an appeal of the chair's ruling, and Democrats moved to table that appeal.

The final vote was 236 to 163 to table the measure, effectively killing it.

I'm still not sure what Price and conservatives are so worried about -- bills that can't pass now won't be able to pass in the lame-duck, either. It's not as if the Democratic majority grows or procedural hurdles disappear in November and December.

Besides, all this GOP talk about how inappropriate it is to use the lame-duck to hold important votes would be more persuasive if Republicans hadn't used a lame-duck to impeach the president of the United States.

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

MARIANNE GINGRICH HAS SOMETHING TO SAY.... Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has a special kind of appreciation for marriage. Gingrich, for example, haggled over the terms of his divorce from his first wife while she was in the hospital, recovering from uterine cancer surgery. He had already proposed to his second wife before he was divorced from his first.

In the '90s, this happened again. Gingrich had an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide -- while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton -- and asked his third wife to marry him before he was divorced from his second.

All of this, of course, would be easier to overlook if (a) Gingrich didn't seem entirely serious about running for president in 2012; and (b) Gingrich weren't running around saying things like, "The Democratic Party has been the active instrument of breaking down traditional marriage."

The middle wife -- the one between Newt's first and third marriages -- is Marianne, who once boasted she could end Gingrich's career with a single interview. Marianne has shown remarkable restraint for over a decade, but appears to have given that interview to Esquire.

It's a very lengthy piece, but the anecdote that's likely to generate the most attention comes in her telling of the point in May 1999, soon after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, when Gingrich confessed to one of his affairs -- with a woman who was in Marianne's "apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed."

[Marianne] called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. " 'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.' "

He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

Speaking to how the former Speaker sees the world, Marianne said Gingrich "believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected." As for his presidential aspirations, she added, "There's no way."

Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share

GIBBS' 'INARTFUL' MISTAKE.... I was tempted to skip the story of the day, because I find the back and forth wearying. The Democrats' progressive base gets justifiably frustrated with the pace of progress; the White House gets justifiably frustrated when the president and his team don't get credit for their accomplishments, even from allies. This isn't especially new, or even unique to this administration.

Nevertheless, the tensions continue to simmer, leading to foolish, preventable mistakes, which come alongside larger truths.

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality."

I know why Gibbs is frustrated. I can even understand some of it. What I can't understand is what made Gibbs think it was a good idea to complain about the left to a reporter three months before an election in which Republicans already enjoy an enthusiasm-gap edge.

Even if Gibbs is genuinely frustrated, and even if he has reason to be, where's the upside in criticism like this, when the WH press secretary's focus should be on President Obama's accomplishments and Republicans' descent into madness? Gibbs no doubt finds it deeply unhelpful when some on the left trash the White House and dampen enthusiasm of voters Democrats clearly need, but by blasting the "professional left," Gibbs only offers additional rhetorical ammunition to those same liberals who will keep trashing the White House.

Worse, he's painted with far too broad a brush. I suspect Gibbs' criticism was directed, for example, at those on the left who worked with conservatives to try to kill health care reform, not those who backed health care reform but still wanted a public option. But by blasting the "professional left" broadly, Gibbs seemed to be taking a shot at his own allies.

This morning, just a few hours after The Hill story was published, Gibbs walked back his "inartful" criticism. After highlighting some of the administration's accomplishments, he added, "In November, America will get to choose between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, or moving forward with the policies that are leading us out. So we should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we've come too far to turn back now."

The White House line on criticism from the left need not be difficult. Indeed, President Obama made it just last month in a video message to Netroots Nation: "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.... Let's finish what we've started." Gibbs' published remarks contradicted this message in a deeply unhelpful way.

In the larger sense, something happens when the pressure's on and the winds are moving in the other direction: some people start to lose their cool. A level head would tell Gibbs not to criticize ostensible allies on the left, even if some of the criticism is justifiable. He thinks condemnations of the White House from the left are unhelpful -- and many of them are -- but it's no better when he relies on a caricature to suggest the "professional left" wants to "eliminate the Pentagon."

If I had to guess -- and admittedly, this is only a guess -- Gibbs' remarks probably weren't part of a coordinated triangulation strategy, but rather, a moment when his emotions got the better of him. That happens sometimes; we're human.

But for the White House, it would be wise to let this be a low point for intra-party tensions, and for it to be followed by a concerted effort to put things right. The left wants to fight the Republicans undermining the national agenda; the left wants to support an ambitious Democratic agenda; and the left wants to keep a Democratic majority on Capitol Hill.

The left, however, needs some help in making this fight happen -- and making sure the fight goes well. Gibbs forgot this week just how positive a role he and the West Wing can play in leading the left/liberals/progressives/Democrats. Here's hoping he'll remember from now on.

Steve Benen 12:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (131)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* It's a huge primary day today, with key contests, up and down the ballot, in Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, and Minnesota.

* Whoever wins the gubernatorial primaries in Minnesota, it looks like the presumptive Republican nominee, Tom Emmer, will be the underdog in November. The latest SurveyUSA poll shows former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton (D) leading Emmer in a hypothetical match-up, 46%-32%

* In Delaware, Rep. Mike Castle (R) still leads Chris Coons (D) by a healthy margin. A new DailyKos/Public Policy Polling survey shows the Republican leading, 48% to 35%, which actually seems a little closer than expected to me.

* The three-way contest in Rhode Island's gubernatorial race has led to a very competitive race. The latest poll from Brown University shows Frank Caprio (D) leading Lincoln Chafee (I) by just one point.

* In Illinois' increasingly bizarre Senate race, Rep. Mark Kirk (R) is now suggesting, through some odd degrees of separation, that Alexi Giannoulias' (D) family's bank is somehow connected to Saddam Hussein.

* And in Connecticut, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) said he's "probably" running for re-election in 2012, but he hasn't "decided fully." Markos Moulitsas noted in response, "I live in perpetual fear that Joe Lieberman will retire, thus depriving us the opportunity to help kick him to the curb."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

PHYSICS, RELATIVITY, AND SCIENCE'S WELL-KNOWN LIBERAL BIAS.... This was making the rounds a bit yesterday, and it's awfully amusing. Conservapedia, a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia, has all kinds of creative insights on reality. The newest entertainment comes from its take on the Theory of Relativity.

The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.

In a footnote, the site adds, "Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold."

So, if I understand this correctly -- and, admittedly, I may not -- physics shouldn't be trusted, because it's accepted by those who don't read the Christian Bible. And the Christian Bible is superior to physics, because a lot of people have read it. (Argumentum Ad Populum)

About a year ago, Salon had a feature called "Ask a Wingnut," in which reasonable people, curious what a real-live conservative thinks about a given issue, get to pose a substantive question to a former Bush administration official. The very first question asked why the right is hostile to science. The official, writing pseudonymously, replied, "To me, the question is almost laughable on its face. Conservatives are pro-science and, as a general rule, pro-cost-benefit analysis and pro-thinking."

There's ample evidence to the contrary.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)

Bookmark and Share

14TH AMENDMENT REPEAL PUSH CAUSES GOP RIFTS.... Just over the last few weeks, the notion of repealing part of the 14th Amendment -- or, at a minimum, holding congressional hearings to discuss a partial repeal of the amendment -- has been endorsed by the Senate Republican leadership, House Republican leadership, and several likely 2012 GOP presidential candidates, among others.

Several former Bush administration officials, who, for all of their faults, weren't necessarily wrong about immigration policy, believe their party is making a big mistake.

[I]n recent days, former aides to both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, who pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, have condemned the calls by top Republicans to end birthright citizenship.

Cesar Conda, who served as domestic policy adviser to Cheney, has called such proposals "offensive." Mark McKinnon, who served as media adviser in Bush's two presidential campaigns, said Republicans risk losing their "rightful claim" to the 14th Amendment if they continue to "demagogue" the issue.

"The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons," McKinnon told POLITICO. "Initially Republicans rallied around the amendment to welcome more citizens to this country. Now it is being used to drive people away."

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, Bush's former chief speechwriter, added on ABC over the weekend, "That is the wisdom of the authors of the 14th Amendment: They essentially wanted to take this very difficult issue -- citizenship -- outside of the political realm. They wanted to take an objective standard, birth, instead of a subjective standard, which is the majorities at the time. I think that's a much better way to deal with an issue like this."

I happen to agree, but Republican officials and candidates are clearly in a very different place right now. This once-nutty idea -- repealing part of the 14th Amendment -- has gone from fringe nonsense to a widely accepted party principle in record time.

Indeed, a week ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went so far as to say he doesn't think "anybody" is "comfortable with" the notion of birthright citizenship. It was a striking argument -- as far as the Senate's top Republican is concerned, the law of the land for the last 142 years, written into constitutional stone, has gone from being universally accepted to universally reviled.

I'm glad former Bush/Cheney aides are willing to call out their GOP brethren on this. In fact, I wish the "loyal Bushies," as they were called by some of their own, would step up even more often to note when their party launches these ridiculous crusades. For example, the Bush White House wouldn't have gone for the Cordoba House hysterics, either.

But the fact that these rifts are occurring at all serves as an interesting reminder -- as disturbing as Republican politics was during the Bush era, it's clear that the GOP's excesses have gotten considerably worse since.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

DAN MAES UNCOVERS THE NEFARIOUS BICYCLE/U.N. PLOT.... Last week, in one of the year's more entertaining campaign attacks, Colorado gubernatorial hopeful Dan Maes (R) blasted Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's (D) efforts to boost bike riding. Yesterday, he dug deeper.

As Maes initially explained it, efforts to promote bicycling and related programs seem like "warm, fuzzy ideas," but they're really "very specific strategies that are dictated" by a United Nations program. Maes conceded that he used to think environmental initiatives like these were harmless, but he now realizes "that's exactly the attitude they want you to have." The truth, he said, is that promotion of bicycle riding "is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms."

Maes, a Tea Party favorite, was completely serious.

Yesterday, he appeared on MSNBC, and chose not to use the hand-brake.

"The bike program in and of itself is fine," Maes said. "What I'm concerned about is what's behind it all."

"We're trying to differentiate myself from the Mayor," he said. Maes argued that if he wins the primary, "people are going to say, 'What's the differences?' because we're both business people. When the mayor signs on to a program that's sponsored by the United Nations, that should bring concern to people as to how that program may or may not be compatible with our state constitution."

Lest anyone think there's anything actually to this, the criticism is crazy. Before Hickenlooper, the leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, even became mayor, Denver agreed to participate in "the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international association that promotes sustainable development and has attracted the membership of more than 1,200 communities, 600 of which are in the United States."

As Brad Johnson explained, "Despite Maes's dark fears, Denver's participation in ICLEI carries no legal obligations and raises no constitutional issues, but does allow city planners to share information and ideas with other urban communities throughout the world."

Even in a nutty year, with some off-the-wall GOP candidates, Maes's line of attack is pretty far out there.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

INVITING W TO THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.... President Obama was in Texas yesterday, and hosted fundraising events in Austin and Dallas, raking in $1.7 million for his party. But during his visits, former Houston Mayor Bill White, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, kept his distance, citing previous commitments elsewhere.

It led the RNC to push its message of the day: Democratic candidates don't want to campaign with the president. There's ample evidence to the contrary -- though, Texas politics being what it is, White's campaign strategy is hardly shocking -- but for an August story, Republicans seemed pretty excited about this yesterday.

Obviously, just as in 2008, there are going to be some areas where Obama is more popular than other areas. In fact, as strategies go, Dems seem to have a pretty good plan: send Obama to help Democratic candidates where it'll help, and send Bill Clinton to help Democratic candidates where Obama's less popular. It's the benefit of having two popular national leaders available.

But so long as presidents on the campaign trail are a subject of interest, it's worth considering where George W. Bush is hiding. MSNBC hosted a discussion yesterday with DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse and RNC Communications Director Doug Heye, and one exchange stood out.

Contessa Brewer: Is Bush still the guy that nobody wants around campaigning for them because of how low his approval ratings were?

Doug Heye: No, not at all.

Really? Not at all? If so, exactly how many candidates should we expect to see getting campaign support from the former president?

Unless I've missed it, Bush has kept an extremely low profile when it comes to the midterm elections -- as far as I can tell, he hasn't made an effort to help literally any candidates this year -- but if the RNC's chief spokesperson believes Bush would be welcome campaigning with Republican candidates, I'll look forward to the events.

I have a strong hunch, though, that Heye may not be sincere. Indeed, just last week, there was a report that the release of George W. Bush's book was delayed "out of fear that a public reminder of his presidential legacy would hurt Republicans heading into November's midterm elections."

This need not be complicated. Republican leaders 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. And now the RNC's chief spokesperson believes Republicans are "not at all" afraid to be seen with the former president. It's an easy enough proposition: prove it.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

THERE'S A COMMANDMENT ABOUT FALSE WITNESS, TOO.... Last week, Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, suggested that taxpayer-financed social programs are a violation of the First Commandment. Since her campaign has now expounded on the subject, it's only fair to note the clarification.

If you're just joining us, Angle told a Christian radio talk-show that public programs are intended to "make government our God," and as such, America's social safety net is "a violation of the First Commandment." She went on to say that America is "entrenched in idolatry," adding, "I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith."

In other words, Sharron Angle is a Senate candidate who considers her campaign a holy war.

With these remarks coming to the public's attention, Angle's campaign is now accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) campaign of injecting religion into the race.

Agen also criticized Reid for playing the God card in the Senate race. He said Angle's point was that the Obama administration had become "all powerful" by passing legislation over the objections of a majority of Nevadans and Americans, including the health care law and divisive stimulus spending.

"It's shamefully hypocritical of Senator Reid to attack Sharron for discussing her religion, since Reid has publicly boasted that his faith and his political beliefs are deeply intertwined," [Angle campaign spokesperson Jarrod Agen] said. "The same man now attacking Sharron Angle is the same guy who not long ago said that he doesn't think he can separate his religion from his politics. Once again, Harry Reid is running from his record."

It's good to know Sharron Angle's campaign is about as mentally sound as Sharron Angle.

Look, her remarks were among the craziest I've ever heard from a Senate candidate. She wasn't "discussing her religion"; she was arguing that basic public services violate the First Commandment and constitute "idolatry." For crying out loud, Angle, in public and on the record, urged "warriors" to join her in a "war of faith."

Talking to voters about how religion influences political beliefs is obviously fine. But that's not even close to what Angle said. From her truly bizarre worldview, the nation's elected leaders are actively involved in a plot "to make government our God."

By any reasonable measure, this is tin-foil-hat/deranged-person-on-a-sidewalk kind of nonsense. Her campaign aides -- whom I genuinely feel sorry for -- can do their best to spin it, but there's only so much a political professional can do with pure madness.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE THE AQUA BUDDHA OFFERS LEGAL ADVICE.... In the course of a high-profile, statewide political campaign, "don't get mad; get litigious" is rarely a sound strategy. Someone might want to let Rand Paul know.

As we talked about yesterday, GQ published a profile of the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, including an anecdote in which Paul, during his college years at Baylor, paid a visit to the home of a female student Paul knew from the swim team. He and a friend, apparently high, kidnapped the woman and tried to force her to take bong hits. When she refused, they drove her to a creek. "They told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him," the woman recalls. "They blindfolded me and made me bow down to 'Aqua Buddha' in the creek. I had to say, 'I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.'"

Initially, the Paul campaign issued a non-denial denial. Campaign manager Jesse Benton said, "National Enquirer-type stories about Dr. Paul's teenage years should be left to the tabloids where they belong." That's fine, I suppose, but the response never quite got around to saying the story isn't true.

Late yesterday, Benton went a little further, telling Dave Weigel:

We are investigating all our options -- including legal ones. We will not tolerate drive-by journalism by a writer with a leftist agenda.

For those keeping score, that's two responses, neither of which refutes the substance of the story.

It's worth noting that the reporter who wrote the GQ piece, Jason Zengerle, hardly has a reputation as some wild-eyed polemicist, and wouldn't be considered "a writer with a leftist agenda" by those familiar with his work. Indeed, GQ's Editor-in-Chief Jim Nelson said in a statement: "We've vetted, researched, and exhaustively fact-checked Jason Zengerle's reporting on Rand Paul's college days, we stand by the story, and we gave the Paul campaign every opportunity to refute it. We notice that they have not, in fact, refuted it."

All things being equal, Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act matters more than some bizarre ritual he engaged in several years ago. But this is the kind of story that makes Rand Paul look like a pretty strange guy, and so far, his campaign isn't exactly handling it well.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 9, 2010

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The scope of the Pakistani disaster is staggering: "The number of people suffering from the massive floods in Pakistan exceeds 13 million -- more than the combined total of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the United Nations said Monday. The death toll in each of those three disasters was much higher than the 1,500 people killed so far in the floods that first hit Pakistan two weeks ago. But the U.N. estimates that 13.8 million people have been affected -- over 2 million more than the other disasters combined."

* Following through on a cost-saving commitment: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Monday that he would close a major military command, restrict the use of outside contractors and reduce the number of generals and admirals across the armed forces to trim back on unaffordable defense spending."

* Another deadly tragedy in Afghanistan: "Gunmen killed 10 members of a medical team, including six Americans, traveling in the rugged mountains of northern Afghanistan, demonstrating the reach of insurgents far from their traditional havens and shocking the expatriate community here."

* In Iraq, too: "Weekend bombings and shootings in Iraq left at least 69 people dead from the north to the south, intensifying fears of a possible surge of violence coinciding with the drawdown of U.S troops."

* House Republicans hope to do no post-election work whatsoever. Are these guys really that lazy?

* Leading Republicans continue to flirt with raising the Social Security retirement age.

* I guess I shouldn't be surprised by Robert Rubin's position on additional stimulus, but here's hoping Democratic officials ignore him.

* Deportations are up, but the Obama administration is sparing one group of immigrants who entered the country illegally: "students who came to the United States without papers when they were children."

* Interesting advice for law students: "When first tier law school graduates are having trouble finding jobs, the ones down the rung are just f**ked."

* Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), who has had some serious health issues in recent years, was hospitalized over the weekend.

* House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) golf habits draw more scrutiny.

* When conservative activists in the U.S. team up with Dutch MP Geert Wilders, there's a problem.

* R.I.P., Tony Judt.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

14TH AMENDMENT NONSENSE REACHES INTO NEW ENGLAND.... It's getting tough to keep track of all the Republicans who are looking askance at the 14th Amendment. Yesterday, Amanda Terkel noted that Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), John McCain (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Texas), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) "all back holding hearings on the issue."

Over the weekend, the position gained additional GOP support, with endorsements from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R).

But it's not just Republican officials who are worth keeping an eye on -- Republican candidates who hope to have a vote on this deserve scrutiny, too.

For example, consider former New Hampshire Attorney General candidate Kelly Ayotte (R), the frontrunner in this year's U.S. Senate race in the Granite State. Just this morning, a voter asked Ayotte about "rewriting that 14th amendment or rewording it." The Senate hopeful replied:

"Well, I know that there's a number of proposals that are being brought forward right now to look at that issue. And I think that we should. Because one of the issues is we have to, obviously, when we look at our Constitution, if we're going to propose any changes to it we have to be very thoughtful and careful about that because it's a great document. But that said, we have people who are coming here just to become, to get healthcare and then leave. And they're not even being part of our society and there's something wrong with that."

When sentences about the Constitution include phrases like, "It's a great document, but..." you know there's a problem.

In a general sense, it really is remarkable to see the speed with which a fringe idea can become the standard GOP talking point for officials and candidates. But in the case of Ayotte, it's even more striking. She is, after all, supposed to be something of a moderate. Indeed, she's running in a moderate state in New England -- the nation's least conservative region.

And now Kelly Ayotte wants to consider changes to the 14th Amendment -- among Senate candidates, there is now no real difference between Ayotte's position and that of extremist Sharron Angle -- as she accepts support from polarizing right-wing figures such as former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R).

Those who hoped Ayotte could be a mainstream voice for the GOP have every reason to be disappointed in what's become of her campaign. She's quickly proving herself to be just another Republican, too afraid of extremists to do the right thing.

And in the larger context, as the desire among key GOP figures to tinker with the 14th Amendment grows, it's hard to overstate how disheartening it is to see what's become of the modern Republican Party.

Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

DO WE REALLY HAVE TO DEBATE THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT AGAIN?.... In the mid-1990s, Republicans thought it'd be fun to push a proposed balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was a silly gimmick that no sensible person could take seriously, and the push faded when Clinton eliminated the deficit he'd inherited from Reagan/Bush, and the "need" for such an amendment disappeared.

In the Bush/Cheney era, the idea fell out of favor. Bush endorsed the BBA as a governor, but all that was quickly forgotten as Republicans added $5 trillion to the debt, and GOP lawmakers decided it was "standard practice" for Republicans "not to pay for things."

With Democrats once again in the majority, wouldn't you know it, the balanced budget amendment is back from the grave.

It started after the 2008 elections. With the economy in freefall, and quite a bit of talk about another Great Depression, leading Republican voices -- including Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence -- said what the country really needed to do was pass an amendment to the Constitution banning deficits. Democrats wisely ignored the hopelessly insane suggestion.

But the GOP continues to embrace proposals in inverse proportion to their seriousness.

Senate Republicans are planning a new push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution when lawmakers return to Washington after the August recess.

GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) will lead the charge in the fall, when Democrats plan to debate raising taxes on families that earn more than $250,000 a year. [...]

They believe the proposal, which came within one vote of passing Congress in 1995, will gain new political traction in the weeks before the election, when federal deficits are a chief concern of many voters.

This is just so tiresome. The same senators who supported some of the largest budget deficits in generations are now pushing a constitutional amendment to prohibit lawmakers from doing what they've already done.

If you were engaged in politics in 1995, some of the arguments against the BBA will probably be familiar to you, and if this starts to go anywhere, we can explore this in more detail. But to briefly review the reasons this is absurd, keep a couple of things in mind. First, sometimes, running a deficit is both wise and necessary, and writing a prohibition into constitutional stone would potentially tie policymakers' hands at key moments of crisis. Second, if the language made exceptions in which deficits would be allowed -- wars, economic crises, etc. -- then there's no point in having the amendment.

But perhaps most importantly, if so-called deficit hawks want a balanced budget, they can and should present a plan on how to make that happen. Instead, these hacks are embracing the easy way out -- instead of doing the hard work, they want to play with a gimmick that will mandate a policy they can't figure out on their own.

In other words, those who want a balanced budget amendment should make plain how they'd balance the budget. Otherwise, the scheme is just a silly political charade.

Republicans, who refuse to take policymaking seriously, intend to push this again after the recess, hoping voters won't realize how dumb it is.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, thinks the pre-reform health care system works just fine.

"I think we get confused a little bit. Our healthcare system is the best in the world. There's nothing wrong with our healthcare system. Our doctors are the best," says Angle.

"But how many people get access to the best healthcare in the world," asks Action News reporter Marco Villarreal.

"The access is not what is being denied. It is the cost that has become prohibitive and that's what we need to address," she answers.

Prefacing her comments by saying "we get confused" was probably a good idea -- Angle's assessment is the kind of thing we hear from those who don't know very much about health care policy.

There's a difference between the quality of our health care and the quality of our health care system. The United States has many truly extraordinary doctors, nurses, hospitals, and medical resources, and no one has argued that there's something wrong with America's medical professionals, our technology, our facilities, and/or our ability to treat the ill.

The point is who has access to this quality care, who can afford it, who'll die because they lack the necessary coverage, who'll get kicked out of the system under rescission, who'll never get into the system because of a pre-existing condition, and whether families, businesses, and government agencies will go bankrupt trying to finance such a system.

Angle's convinced access isn't being denied. That's idiotic -- maybe Sharron Angle should stop by a free clinic for the uninsured sometime, and talk with struggling American families, many of them with very treatable ailments, who sometimes go years without basic medical care.

We're talking about a system in which one layoff could mean no coverage for a family, one pre-existing condition could mean no affordable insurance, and one serious illness could send a family that played by the rules and did nothing wrong into bankruptcy. No modern system on earth allows this, except ours.

At least, that is, until President Obama, Harry Reid, and other Democratic officials brought necessary improvements to this dysfunctional mess. Sharron Angle thinks reform was not only wrong, but unnecessary.

She has no idea what she's talking about.

Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

HOW A DYSFUNCTIONAL MESS CAN STILL GET THINGS DONE.... In the wake of George Packer's "The Empty Chamber," the dysfunction and paralysis of the United States Senate is the subject of renewed interest. That's a good thing -- the simmering institutional reform efforts need all the help they can get.

The Senate is an exasperating mess that struggles to legislate at all, which not only fuels public frustrations and cynicism, but quite literally undermines the nation's ability to address serious problems. This assessment isn't new, but as the abuses and breakdowns become more common, the institutional flaws become more glaring.

Or do they? There's a case to be made -- and a fairly persuasive one at that -- that the current Congress has been as successful as any in several decades. For all of its many problems, this Senate, in just 18 months, passed health care reform, Wall Street reform, the Recovery Act, student loan reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Hate Crimes Prevention Act, new regulations of the credit card industry, new regulations of the tobacco industry, and a national service bill, and confirmed two Supreme Court justices while they were at it. If the process was completely, irreparably broken, these victories wouldn't have happened.

With this in mind, Jill Lawrence takes a contrarian view and argues that the status quo in the Senate isn't so bad after all.

It's an impressive record, but it has not been treated that way. Part of the reason is that the journey has been ugly. McConnell and his crew are on track to match their 2007-08 record of forcing 139 cloture votes to end filibusters, while Democrats are taking the usual steps -- compromises, cajoling, cringe-worthy deals -- to forge onward. Every move by each side is dissected 24/7 by countless armchair analysts on blogs, talk radio and cable TV.

Lawrence's larger point seems to be that those demanding reform are proposing solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. The Senate is frustrating, she says, "but hardly stagnant."

As one of those annoying people who whines incessantly about the Senate, I'll concede that the point has some merit. This Senate has achieved a great deal, and really is the most successful of my lifetime. It'd be a mistake to argue otherwise.

But I'm still not persuaded by Lawrence's argument. The legislative breakthroughs have occurred despite the Senate's ridiculous system, but the victories are hardly a justification for a broken institution.

There are a few points to consider that Lawrence omitted. For one thing, the Senate Democratic majority is unusually large -- at 59 seats, it's the biggest majority for either party in 30 years. Even at 59-41, the Senate has just barely been able to pass major bills, but therein lies the point -- a 55-45 Senate should be able to tackle major challenges, too. As we're learning, that's no longer the case. The country can't wait for once-in-a-generation majorities in order to pass important proposals.

For another, consider just how close the recent breakthroughs have been. The margins have been razor thin on nearly every key bill that's passed, and a handful of instances in which the ball bounced the other way -- Coleman edges Franken, Specter isn't driven out of the GOP, Lieberman switches caucuses -- would have made all of the achievements impossible. The success of the Senate shouldn't be dependent on a handful of happy coincidences.

Finally, also note that while the Senate has successfully passed several, but not all, of the "big" bills, it routinely fails at everyday tasks, such as confirming the executive branch with qualified nominees. These common breakdowns are so common, it's easy to forget them while major breakthroughs eke out narrow wins.

I give Harry Reid and the leadership a lot of credit for the accomplishments of the last 18 months, but these victories only obscure what I'm afraid is still plainly true: the Senate is in desperate need of reform.

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

RAND PAUL AND HIS AQUA BUDDHA.... As a rule, adult political candidates shouldn't have to endure too much scrutiny about their college-age activities. We've all had "youthful indiscretions" that we wouldn't want held against us.

But I can't help but notice that Rand Paul, the extremist Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, really is a strange guy.

The strangest episode of Paul's time at Baylor occurred one afternoon in 1983 (although memories about all of these events are understandably a bit hazy, so the date might be slightly off), when he and a NoZe brother paid a visit to a female student who was one of Paul's teammates on the Baylor swim team. According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, "He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They'd been smoking pot."

After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. "They told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him," the woman recalls. "They blindfolded me and made me bow down to 'Aqua Buddha' in the creek. I had to say, 'I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.' At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no."

A lot of folks had some rowdy experiences in college, but I suspect the number of Senate candidates who kidnapped a fellow student, forced her into some bizarre ritual, and worshiped the "Aqua Buddha" is fairly low.

This is, by the way, the same Baylor University that Paul didn't graduate from, despite some suggestions to the contrary.

In the grand scheme of things, Paul's radical ideology -- he's the one who opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act -- is far more relevant than his ridiculous behavior in college. But given the right-wing ophthalmologist's razor thin public record -- he's never sought or held public office at any level -- incidents like these help flesh out a better understanding of Rand Paul's background.

And as we're learning, Paul is a weird dude.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

COMPARING HIS PARTY TO A 5 YEAR OLD.... Before lawmakers broke for their August recess, a couple of key pieces of legislation were defeated because of Republican procedural concerns. A bill to offer more health care resources for 9/11 rescue workers was defeated in the House, for example, because Republicans said they wanted to offer poison-pill amendments and Democrats wouldn't let them. Likewise, a bill to offer tax breaks to small businesses was defeated by Senate Republicans for the same reason.

What's with this GOP preoccupation with procedure? Why should important legislation die over amendments that won't pass anyway? Before senators headed home last week, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) tried to explain his party's thinking.

"Saying to a senator, 'You can't bring up your amendment,' is like saying to your 5-year-old son, 'OK, Johnny, whatever you do, don't touch the stove.' Johnny's going to spend the whole week trying to figure out a way to touch the stove."

Hmm. If I didn't know better, I might think Lamar Alexander believes Republican lawmakers act like 5 year olds.

A few months ago, the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein noted that GOP leaders "are becoming the Bart Simpsons of Congress, gleeful at smarmy and adolescent tactics and unable and unwilling to get serious."

Apparently, Ornstein isn't the only one who's noticed.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* At the summer meeting of the Republican National Committee, chairman Michael Steele vowed to send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to "the back of the bus." Time for a new speechwriter?

* In related news, the RNC is adjusting its presidential nominating calendar, "moving primaries to later dates and requiring states to allocate their delegates on a proportional basis."

* In Iowa, former right-wing gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has not endorsed GOP nominee Terry Branstad, but to the disappointment of Democrats, Vander Plaats also announced he won't run as a third-party candidate.

* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) must not be too confident about his primary race -- his campaign launched a new attack ad against challenger J.D. Hayworth this morning, highlighting his ties to the Abramoff lobbying scandal.

* In Illinois, Alexi Giannoulias' (D) Senate campaign has a new spot going after Rep. Mark Kirk (R) for (a) lying a whole lot about his own background; and (b) voting as a Bush lackey for much of the last decade.

* In Connecticut, a new Quinnipiac poll shows a very close Democratic gubernatorial primary, with Ned Lamont leading Dan Malloy, 45% to 42%. The Republican gubernatorial primary is also getting more competitive, with Tom Foley leading Mike Fedele, 38% to 30%.

* On a related note, Quinnipiac also polled the Republican Senate primary, and found former Rep. Rob Simmons' renewed campaign struggling -- he's trailing former wrestling executive Linda McMahon by 22 points -- 50% to 28%.

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, the pollster has Kelly Ayotte (R) with a big lead over Rep. Paul Hodes (D) in New Hampshire's Senate race, 51% to 38%.

* Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) endorsed candidates in three key races last week -- a Senate candidate in Kansas, a gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee, and a congressional candidate in Georgia. All three lost.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

CERTAINTY IS EASY TO ACHIEVE.... For many on the right, "economic uncertainty" is a popular buzz phrase. The private sector may be more willing to hire more workers, the argument goes, if employers weren't burdened by the "economic uncertainty" surrounding tax rates, for example.

Much of this is utter nonsense, and Stan Collender notes that the business community is actually creating more uncertainty. (via Matt Yglesias)

There already is absolute certainty about the tax cuts enacted in the early 2000s: Under existing law they expire at midnight December 31, 2010. Do nothing and we can all be absolutely certain that rates will go up. Somehow, however, that certainty is being defined as creating uncertainty.

By contrast, the changes to the existing law the business community is saying are so important to economic growth will require new legislation and, especially these days, the legislative process is about as unpredictable as you can get. So pushing for the three changes the business community says are so important to the economic recovery -- keeping the current rate on upper income individuals and the existing rates on capital gains and dividends -- has nothing to do with certainty and everything to do with lowering taxes compared to what they would be under current law.

The most certainty would be provided not just if there were no changes at all, but also if there were no discussion about whether there should be any changes. You can't demand certainty and change at the same time. When you do that, the only thing that's really certain is that certainty is not what you're seeking.

Well said. I'd just add that this seems to have even broader applicability.

The same pitch from the same sectors argues, for example, that health care reform policies have created "economic uncertainty." But the Affordable Care Act has largely done the opposite -- making clear what kind of system will be in place in the coming years -- and the uncertainty comes from Republican efforts to repeal and/or deny funding to the system. If the business community wants certainty, Tom Donohue & Co. wouldn't be rallying to support candidates who'd push for more insecurity.

Likewise, we hear that the Obama administration's emphasis of regulatory enforcement creates "economic uncertainty." Again, this is backwards -- we know exactly what the administration is doing to protect workers and consumers. The uncertainty comes from GOP lawmakers who've been pushing for a moratorium on new regulations.

This is especially true when it comes to energy/climate. Lewis Hay, CEO of NextEra Energy Resources, recently said, "There's a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines just waiting" to see what policymakers do about regulating carbon emissions. But the easiest way to resolve the "uncertainty" is to pass legislation making it perfectly clear. Republicans refuse to allow a vote, and the business community complaining about ambiguities are siding with the GOP.

Those worried about "economic uncertainties" are the ones encouraging less clarity. The whole line of argument is kind of bizarre.

But to the larger point, if these uncertainties aren't the reason for struggling businesses, what's the actual problem? It's not complicated -- businesses need more customers, which will come from creating more jobs, which will come from more intervention from policymakers in Washington, which won't happen because of opposition from the GOP and its allies.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

PRIORITIES.... The New York Times reported over the weekend on cash-strapped states and municipalities resorting to "major life-changing cuts in core services." This includes four-day weeks for public schools, local bus systems being shut down, and turning off streetlights in Colorado Springs. The report comes on the heels of a Wall Street Journal piece about several state governments cutting back on paved roads, because they can only afford gravel.

State and local officials don't want to raise taxes, Republicans in Congress don't want to spend money and "bailout" states, and the consequences are both evident and predictable. We're told we can afford tax cuts and wars, but not teachers and highways.

This, in turn, undermines the economy at a critical time -- as states lay off public employees, the jobs picture gets worse -- and as Paul Krugman explained today, weakens the nation's future.

Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward.

How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right.

The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud -- to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.

So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere.

It's worth emphasizing that this is all completely avoidable. Americans just have to muster the political will to reject the misguided ideas of failed ideologues, and demand a more sensible course based on sound public priorities.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

STILL WAITING FOR A COHERENT ARGUMENT.... Last week's federal court ruling striking down California's Prop 8 generated plenty of enraged responses from far-right activists groups, particularly in the religious right. But in general, Republican politicians haven't responded with much of anything -- as much as the midterm strategy is built around turning white voters against The Other, the GOP just doesn't seem anxious to exploit the court ruling on marriage equality.

Maggie Haberman reported over the weekend that this is part of a deliberate strategy -- Republicans don't see this issue as a winning wedge in 2010, so they're biting their tongues.

What about those of us waiting to see a coherent conservative criticism of the ruling? The NYT's Ross Douthat picks up the slack and offers what he considers his best case for opposing marriage equality.

[L]ifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable -- a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations -- that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support. [...]

[I]f we just accept this shift, we're giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve.

I see. So, two consenting adults who are in love and want to legally commit to one another should be allowed to marry, but only if Ross Douthat considers them a "microcosm of civilization" and "an organic connection between human generations"?

I keep thinking that, given enough time, opponents of marriage equality will come up with a reasonable argument or two. That just hasn't happened yet.

Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share

THE RECOVERY ACT'S REPUBLICAN FANS.... Ask just about any Republican in Congress for their thoughts on last year's stimulus package, and you'll hear largely the same message -- the word "failure" would be thrown around quite a bit.

But ask Republican governors, and a different message emerges. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) spoke to CNN's Candy Crowley yesterday about the state of the economy. McDonnell touted some recent gains in the commonwealth, prompting Crowley to ask if he'd give President Obama any credit for the progress. He replied:

"Well, I think there is plenty of credit to go around. We've got some good fundamentals in Virginia. We're at about 7 percent unemployment. But I think the stimulus probably helped a little bit. Our strong economic development initiatives have helped a lot. It was probably a team effort."

He added that he believes "in the short run some of the stimulus funding has helped us in some of the areas."

Obviously, I wouldn't characterize this as a glowing endorsement, but McDonnell's line is clearly distinct from the standard Republican talking points, which continue to insist, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that the Recovery Act not only failed to make a difference, but actually made things worse. Virginia's governor seems to know better.

But also note how common this sentiment is among Republican governors. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R) has offered some praise for Obama's recovery efforts, as have Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, back when he was still a Republican. He seems reluctant to admit it out loud, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) seems to love the stimulus as much as anyone in the country, rivaling the support of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who's offered unqualified praise for the stimulus.

Maybe Republicans on the Hill should have a chat with Republican governors? They're offering two very different messages on one of the biggest issues of the day.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share

BOEHNER, PENCE SIGNAL A NEW DEBATE ON TAX CUTS, DEFICITS.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) appeared on "Meet the Press" yesterday, where he predictably called for keeping the Bush/Cheney tax policies in place indefinitely. Host David Gregory asked the obvious question: given GOP rhetoric on the deficit, how do Republicans intend to pay for these massive tax breaks?

Gregory aired a clip from Alan Greenspan, who supports allowing the lower Bush rates to expire on schedule, and asked Boehner to respond. The Republican leader kept saying the same thing, over and over again, reiterating his support for tax cuts. Gregory kept asking whether those cuts would be paid for, and Boehner kept refusing to answer. If I counted correctly, the host posed the question seven times -- and seven times Boehner just didn't want to respond directly.

At one point, Boehner even accused Gregory of trying to "get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there." It was the cheapest of pathetic copouts -- asking if lawmakers intend to pay for their own ideas is a "Washington game"? Please.

Later, in the same program, Gregory asked House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to reconcile the gap between GOP rhetoric on deficit reduction and GOP rhetoric on tax cuts. He refused to answer the question, too.

It was rather painful to watch all of this dodging, but I was actually quite pleased with the exchanges. It would have been easy for Boehner and Pence to simply take the usual GOP line -- policymakers shouldn't even care if tax cuts are paid for -- but they seemed reluctant to blatantly lie. I found it oddly refreshing.

Indeed, note the recent trend here. Last week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) conceded that extending Bush's tax policies would increase the deficit, but said "the priority" has to be the economy. Yesterday, Boehner and Pence implicitly made the same case.

This is more important than is evident at face value. The Democratic line for the last year and a half has been that the deficit matters, but economic growth and job creation matter a lot more. Slowly but surely, leading Republicans seem to be coming to the same conclusion.

At this point, then, it's time for a new debate. For 18 months, it's been economic growth vs. deficit reduction. Boehner, Pence, and Cantor are signaling a new argument -- economic growth through spending vs. economic growth through tax cuts.

Since we already know we get a much better bang for the buck when it comes to spending, it's an argument Republicans will lose, at least if reality has any bearing on the outcome of policy debates.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

HOW TO ARGUE MARRIAGE EQUALITY.... In light of last week's federal court ruling on California's Proposition 8, marriage equality received a fair amount of attention on the Sunday morning shows, including interviews with both Ted Olson and David Boies, the legal team that won the case.

On CBS's "Face the Nation," Boies, perhaps best known as the attorney representing Democrats in 2000's Bush v. Gore, faced off against Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins. As expected, Perkins spewed a lot of nonsense, prompting Boies to make plain the limits of far-right rhetoric. (via John Cole)

"Well, it's easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions appear-- appeal to people's fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don't exist or don't say what you say they do. In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions. You've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote, to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can't be crossexamined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence. There weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science.

"And it's easy to say that on television. But witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court, you can't do that. And that's what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost."

As the kids say, boo-yah. Perkins can repeat his talking points, and maybe even persuade the uninformed and/or those inclined to agree with him, but when it comes to withstanding scrutiny, Perkins and his ilk have built a house of cards that crumbles with surprising ease.

On a related note, on "Fox News Sunday," Olson, perhaps best known as the attorney representing Republicans in 2000's Bush v. Gore, sparred a bit with host Chris Wallace, who threw just about every GOP talking point he could think of at Bush's former solicitor general. The central point of Wallace's questioning seemed fairly straightforward: if voters want to limit the scope of Americans' rights, they should be able to do so at the ballot box. Olson turned the question around:

"Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let's wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It's in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it's encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I'm very, very pleased about that.... We can't wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated."

Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 8, 2010

A 'BORROWED' MAJORITY AGAINST A RADICALIZED MINORITY.... It's sometimes easy to forget that the Democratic House majority, by contemporary standards, is quite sizable. Between the 2006 midterms, the 2008 cycle, and the eight House special elections since President Obama's inauguration, Democrats have gained 55 seats in five years. The result is the largest majority either party has enjoyed in two decades.

In a sense, though, it's a "borrowed" majority -- Dems rode a wave that was generated by the spectacular failures of Republicans of the Bush/Cheney era, picking up seats in GOP districts. By one recent count, Dems hold 80 House seats in districts George W. Bush carried in 2004, and 48 seats John McCain's presidential campaign won in 2008. What's more, we now know that 8 of those 48 Democratic incumbents representing "red" districts are retiring this year.

Needless to say, the NRCC's target list for the midterms largely writes itself.

But in an interesting campaign analysis today, Jeff Zeleny notes one of the year's most important developments.

There are multiple combinations for how Republicans can reach the gain needed to win control of the House, but neither side disputes the notion that for Republicans to be successful, some of their victories must come from these split districts.

They are by no means all easy targets for Republicans. For a variety of factors, including fund-raising strength and the quality and ideological positioning of the Republican candidates, only 15 of the 40 districts are considered top targets by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Several others are rated competitive by nonpartisan analysts.

At least a handful of Democrats in the 40 districts are no longer considered to be as vulnerable as Republicans had hoped, largely because their preferred candidates were defeated by more conservative candidates in primaries. [emphasis added]

In general, when we talk about GOP nominees being too radical to win key elections, we think of Senate campaigns. Nevada looked like an easy pick-up for Republicans, for example, until they nominated the certifiable Sharron Angle. Kentucky wasn't even supposed to be competitive, until the party tapped extremist ophthalmologist Rand Paul. Radical Senate candidates, not even close to the American mainstream, will be on the ballot in Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, undermining (though not eliminating) the GOP's chances in winnable races.

But it's worth remembering that this same dynamic is evident in House races, too. In many instances, the party establishment rallied behind an electable far-right conservative, only to find the party base nominating a less electable, very-far-right conservative.

The GOP leadership's deliberate efforts to gin up excitement among hysterical right-wing activists has given Republicans an edge when it comes to partisan enthusiasm, but the strategy is not without negative consequences for the party.

Steve Benen 11:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

Bookmark and Share

SECESSION, SECESSION-LITE, AND THE POLITICS OF TEMPER TANTRUMS.... A couple of weeks ago, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) talked up 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), who has referenced "dissolving" the Union, for also raising concerns about the U.S. government's "oppressive hand."

This Civil War talk has been echoed by other Republicans, including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), and disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

All of this, of course, is insane. It's hardly news that contemporary Republicans have become more radical, but this secession talk helps drive the point home nicely.

Dana Milbank takes this one step further in his column today, noting that some of the secession talk among Republicans has been repackaged, though it's every bit as extreme.

Most conservatives know it sounds loopy to talk about dissolving the union. After all, it didn't go so well the last time around. That's why it's more acceptable to talk about secession's cousin, nullification. Calling themselves "Tenthers" (for the 10th Amendment, which gives states powers not assigned to the feds) they're claiming that states can merely ignore any federal law they don't like. [...]

But nullification, like secession, has been tried before, with poor result. In 1832, Andrew Jackson threatened to use force against South Carolina for nullifying federal law, saying the state was on the brink of treason and argued that "to say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation." A compromise held off violence for another quarter century. [...]

If a state thinks the law is unconstitutional, it can challenge the law in court, as Virginia is doing. If people don't like the law, they can elect a new Congress and president to repeal it. Or, they can attempt to amend the Constitution, as several Republican lawmakers would do with the proposed repeal of the 14th Amendment, the one with all that nonsense about equal protection under the law. But secession and nullification have all the legitimacy of a temper tantrum.

But that tantrum is nevertheless becoming increasingly common, as evidenced by Tom Emmer, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota, who believes states should reject all federal laws unless explicitly endorsed by supermajorities in state legislatures.

There is no better example of hysterical Republican extremism. Such madness would have been laughed at by the GOP mainstream not too long ago, but is now a familiar component of the Republican message of the 21st century.

Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

ABUSE OF THE RULES ISN'T SOMETHING TO "GET USED TO".... David Broder writes today that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is entirely content with the way the Senate functions. The chamber is "operating very much as the Founders intended," McConnell insisted.

And what of the growing sense, even among senators, that the institution has been damaged, at times even paralyzed, by unprecedented obstructionism? McConnell added that newer members just aren't accustomed yet to their surroundings. Broder reported, "The Senate, [McConnell] said, 'takes a bit of getting used to.' But if they stick it out, these newcomers will learn to love the old rules, he said, and abandon their foolish impulse to change them."

filibusterchart.jpg

You've no doubt seen this chart, put together by congressional scholar Norm Ornstein, before, but it's worth reviewing again. It notes the growth of filibusters as a rare, and usually inconsequential, tactic used by Senate minorities, to the abuse we see today. After Democrats won back Congress in 2006, Republicans broke a record unseen in American history, and though it's not reflected on this chart, in the current Congress, for the first time, the Senate demands supermajorities on nearly every bill.

Mitch McConnell believes the chamber is "operating very much as the Founders intended"? Whether he's lying or ignorant is open to debate, but either way, the argument is demonstrably ridiculous. As Jon Chait noted the other day, "The filibuster is not part of the design. It developed by accident -- the Constitution calls for supermajorities in a few limited instances: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments."

Mandating supermajorities to pass legislation -- all legislation -- is a twisted take that undermines the government's ability to function.

McConnell thinks senator should just "get used to" the way the Senate does business. But that's crazy -- the Senate never operated this way, it wasn't designed to operate this way, and as we've seen repeatedly of late, it can't operate this way.

McConnell made this case in a room of political reporters. Any of them foolish enough to accept his nonsense at face value have fallen for a weak con.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

MADDOW 2, O'REILLY 0.... A couple of weeks ago, there was an interesting dustup between Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. While these kinds of disputes can often become petty and tiresome, the area of disagreement in this case is actually pretty interesting, and so I'm glad it's continuing.

To briefly recap for those just joining us, as the Shirley Sherrod matter was unfolding, Rachel noted O'Reilly's misguided role in pushing nonsense, and tied it to Fox News' role in pushing racial divisions. O'Reilly responded by boasting about his ratings, leading Rachel to note that the truth matters more than the size of one's audience.

O'Reilly followed up in his syndicated column, calling Rachel a "loon," and calling the notion that Fox News is trying to scare white voters "preposterous." He labeled Rachel's comments "paranoid dishonest rants," lacking even "a shred of evidence." O'Reilly added that Fox News has great ratings.

This week, Rachel responded that the argument is so "stupid," it "doesn't even get dressed up in Latin phrasing." She added that Fox News "consistently runs stories it says are news, but that nobody else really covers. Stories that are ginned up, exaggerated, caricatured, in some cases flat-out made-up scare stories designed to make white people feel afraid of black people. Designed to make it seem like black people -- or in some cases immigrants -- are threatening white people and taking what is rightfully theirs. You may not like that diagnosis of what Fox has been up to, but to say there's no evidence -- not 'a shred of evidence,' as he said -- that's bullpucky."

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

After highlighting a wide variety of examples to bolster her case, Rachel concluded, "[R]emember, Mr. O'Reilly says there is not a shred of evidence that Fox News hypes stories about scary black people taking white people's stuff.

"I am not interested in playing cable news insult ping-pong with Mr. O'Reilly, but as much as he keeps insisting that I'm no one worth arguing with, that I'm an 'uber-leftist' -- he called me that in his column -- and a loon twice now, and a slightly larger percentage of 1% of the population watches his show than the proportion of 1% of the population that watches my show, for all he complains about how unimportant I am, my criticism that Fox News scares white people on purpose to politically benefit conservatives -- damn the consequences for the country -- that criticism appears to have struck a nerve over at Fox. It appears to have gotten under Mr. O'Reilly's skin.

"Good."

Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S NOT JUST LOWER MANHATTAN.... For Republican opponents of the proposed Cordoba House in lower Manhattan, 9/11 is available as a rationalization -- they want to deny some Americans religious liberty because a Muslim community center is a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. They insist this isn't about transparent bigotry towards a faith community the right should consider allies -- Feisal Abdul Rauf is committed to fighting radicalism -- but rather, it's about 9/11 sensitivity.

Of course, while some conservatives fight against the Cordoba House, other conservatives are fighting "in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations." In Tennessee, California, and Wisconsin, for example, far-right groups are vehemently opposed to new houses of worship for Muslims because, well, the far-right groups hate Muslims.

Diana Serafin, a grandmother who lost her job in tech support this year, said she reached out to others she knew from attending Tea Party events and anti-immigration rallies. She said they read books by critics of Islam, including former Muslims like Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan and Manoucher Bakh. She also attended a meeting of the local chapter of ACT! for America, a Florida-based group that says its purpose is to defend Western civilization against Islam.

"As a mother and a grandmother, I worry," Ms. Serafin said. "I learned that in 20 years with the rate of the birth population, we will be overtaken by Islam, and their goal is to get people in Congress and the Supreme Court to see that Shariah is implemented. My children and grandchildren will have to live under that.... I do believe everybody has a right to freedom of religion. But Islam is not about a religion

The fact that Serafin recently lost her job is relevant -- times of economic distress invariably lead anxiety-ridden conservatives to lash out hysterically at minority groups as scapegoats.

But it's worth emphasizing that the bigots' activism isn't just offensive, and doesn't just help Osama bin Laden's agenda, but it's also wildly self-defeating.

A two-year study by a group of academics on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. The study was conducted by professors with Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina. It disclosed that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.

Radicalization of alienated Muslim youths is a real threat, Mr. Bagby said. "But the youth we worry about," he said, "are not the youth that come to the mosque."

No, the youth we have to worry about -- those likely to be radicalized -- are those who listen to conservative activists and leaders who insist on telling them that they're second-class citizens whose rights are lesser than everyone else's.

Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

MCCONNELL'S OCCASIONAL CANDOR.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is not someone I'd generally characterize as "truth-oriented." But he will, on rare occasions, be unexpectedly candid and make important public concessions.

In March, for example, McConnell was surprisingly candid about his decision from the outset to try to kill health care reform, regardless of merit or Democratic compromises, by demanding unanimous Republican opposition: "It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out." It's a dynamic that made compromise, quite literally, impossible.

Soon after, McConnell explained the importance he and the House GOP leadership put on "unify[ing] our members in opposition" to everything Democrats propose, because unanimous Republican disagreement would necessarily make Democratic ideas less popular. "Public opinion can change, but it is affected by what elected officials do," McConnell conceded. "Our reaction to what [Democrats] were doing had a lot to do with how the public felt about it. Republican unity in the House and Senate has been the major contributing factor to shifting American public opinion."

And at a political picnic in Kentucky yesterday, McConnell expounded on his strategy.

In the course of defending his leadership of the Senate GOP, which he proudly admitted has been memorable for its unprecedented obstruction, McConnell said he had had no choice but to turn seemingly every legislative maneuver, no matter how minor, into a weeks-long procedural slog.

"We decided when they decided they were going to turn us into France, we were going to say no," McConnell said. "Had we sort of gone over and made everything bipartisan -- you know they're going to run against us as the Party Of No. Well, it depends on what you're saying no to, ladies and gentleman."

Now, as a substantive matter, the notion that the Democratic agenda would turn the United States into France is obviously idiotic -- the kind of infantile nonsense one might expect from a talk-radio shock-jock, not from a U.S. Senate leader.

But the concession about strategy is nevertheless interesting -- on the one hand, McConnell and his caucus have spent a year and a half suggesting that Republicans have taken obstructionism to scandalous and unprecedented depths because Democrats haven't compromised enough. On the other, McConnell continues to quietly acknowledge that no matter what Dems offer in terms of concessions, McConnell doesn't want and doesn't care about cooperation between the parties.

Indeed, just this week, McConnell told reporters that the kind of political "balance" he'll demand in the next Congress is the kind in which every piece of legislation is "center-right," with no exceptions, even if there's a Democratic majority.

There's still a sense among "serious" observers in the political media establishment that Congress will be more productive next year, after Republican gains leads to more compromise and bipartisan cooperation. One only needs to listen to Mitch McConnell to know how very wrong this assumption is.

Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 7, 2010

THE WISDOM OF A LIBERATED REPUBLICAN, CONT'D.... Regular readers know that I've been fascinated with the plight of Rep. Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican lawmaker from South Carolina. Inglis' congressional career will wrap up -- involuntarily -- later this year, and he prepares to leave, he's sounding a whole lot more reasonable.

To briefly review, Inglis was recently humiliated in a GOP primary, losing by a ridiculous 42-point margin in a district he 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.

In the wake of his defeat, Inglis has been willing to show the kind of candor we don't often hear from congressional Republicans. That's included trashing 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; blasting GOP "Birthers," and concluding that the Republican strategy of stirring up the party base is "a bad decision for the country."

As part of his efforts, Inglis also talked to Mother Jones' David Corn about, among other things, just how crazy some Republican activists are, and followed up with CNN's Rick Sanchez this week. The host struggled not to laugh while reading some of the remarks the congressman was confronted with during his unsuccessful re-election bid:

"'I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings' -- I'm gonna try and not laugh here -- 'and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, 'What the heck are you talking about?' I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, 'You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!'"

Inglis responded: "Well you know, I think that my colleague put it well to me last week. She said that her father used to tell her, 'Leaders can either lead -- or mislead.' And you know, if you're gonna lead, you need to lead with facts. And you need to help people the realities that we face."

In the interview with Corn, Inglis also explained that he believes it's just "a dangerous strategy to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible." He also said he wanted to win, but wasn't willing to lie, just to satisfy ideological extremism, paranoia, and bigotry.

Looking ahead, Corn asked Inglis about the GOP's future, specifically former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R): "Inglis pauses for a moment: 'I think that there are people who seem to think that ignorance is strength.' And he says of her: 'If I choose to remain ignorant and uninformed and encourage people to follow me while I celebrate my lack of information,' that's not responsible."

In the 21st century, there's no more room in the Republican Party for Bob Inglis. It's a truth that speaks volumes.

Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

WHY PETER DIAMOND'S NOMINATION MATTERS MORE THAN YOU THINK.... President Obama nominated three accomplished experts a few months ago to serve on the board of governors of the Federal Reserve -- an entity with more than a little influence over the macroeconomic conditions in the U.S. economy. The Senate Banking Committee approved all three nominees.

But this week, one of the brilliant scholars ran into trouble. The development was significant, as was the larger significance regarding Republicans' political motivations.

[U]nder an arcane procedural rule, the Senate sent [M.I.T. professor Peter Diamond's] nomination back to the White House on Thursday night before starting its summer recess. A leading Republican senator, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, said that Mr. Diamond did not have sufficiently broad macroeconomic experience to help run the central bank. [...]

All three nominees were approved by the Senate Banking Committee, and there does not seem to be enough opposition to permanently block Mr. Diamond. "This is standard operating procedure in the Senate, and we expect that the president will renominate Peter Diamond," a White House official said of the delay.

Mr. Diamond, 70, joined the M.I.T. faculty in 1966 and is an authority on taxation, Social Security, pensions, Medicare, labor markets and behavioral economics.

Even for a hack like Shelby, questioning Diamond's experience is both crazy and pathetic -- the scholar is among the most accomplished economists of his generation. The conservative Alabaman suggested the Diamond's background is not in monetary policy, which is true, but is hardly a prerequisite -- of the five current governors of the Fed, three are not specialists in monetary economics. One of Bush's appointees has no advanced degree in economics and has never done any academic research in the field. Shelby never raised questions about his qualifications and didn't hesitate to support that nomination.

So, what's this all about? It's worth considering the possibility that congressional Republicans, not content with blocking legislation that might improve the economy, also want to prevent the Federal Reserve from exercising its powers and pumping more capital into the economy. Jonathan Cohn's take, explaining what President Obama's nominees may do if confirmed to the Fed, is worth reading.

One of his nominees, Janet Yellen, has said publicly that the Fed has an obligation to focus more on employment during times like these. And while I don't know whether Diamond has said similar things, I know enough about his philosophical bearings to know -- or, at least, suspect strongly -- that he'd push for more employment-focused policies, as well. As Paul Krugman notes today, Diamond wrote the seminal paper on structural shifts in unemployment.

In other words, Obama's nominees may very well use the power of the Fed to improve the American economy -- so Shelby is slowing the process down, on purpose, and making the White House needlessly jump through procedural hoops without a coherent explanation.

It may be because Shelby is "just being a prick," but it seems just as likely that the Republican senator hopes to paralyze the Federal Reserve, keeping it from giving the economy a much-needed boost.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

IN THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY ON EARTH.... To note that the United States is the richest country on the planet is a bit of an understatement. We can take the economies of some of the world's wealthiest countries -- Japan, China, and Germany -- and combine their gross domestic product totals, and the U.S. still has more wealth.

But how we decide to use or not use our wealth, particularly in times of economic distress, can occasionally boggle the mind.

Plenty of businesses and governments furloughed workers this year, but Hawaii went further -- it furloughed its schoolchildren. Public schools across the state closed on 17 Fridays during the past school year to save money, giving students the shortest academic year in the nation and sending working parents scrambling to find care for them.

Many transit systems have cut service to make ends meet, but Clayton County, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, decided to cut all the way, and shut down its entire public bus system. Its last buses ran on March 31, stranding 8,400 daily riders.

Even public safety has not been immune to the budget ax. In Colorado Springs, the downturn will be remembered, quite literally, as a dark age: the city switched off a third of its 24,512 streetlights to save money on electricity, while trimming its police force and auctioning off its police helicopters.

Faced with the steepest and longest decline in tax collections on record, state, county and city governments have resorted to major life-changing cuts in core services like education, transportation and public safety that, not too long ago, would have been unthinkable. And services in many areas could get worse before they get better.

At least in theory, this is what many Americans, including nearly all conservatives, say they want. The demand is for "spending cuts," "smaller government, and fewer "public services." Americans should fend for themselves. We're all on our own. If the wealthiest country on the planet can't afford buses or streetlights, so be it -- just don't raise taxes a penny or we'll run you out of town.

Last year's stimulus, it's worth noting, prevented many of these state and local cuts from happening sooner. But the Recovery Act is nearly finished, and a few too many of our political leaders believe the public would rather see schools struggle to stay open five days a week than see additional economic stimulus that could literally help keep the lights on.

For Republicans, it's simply a matter of priorities -- America doesn't like and can't afford spending on core public services like a local police force, but we can afford wars and tax cuts for millionaires. And don't ask too many questions about this, or you'll be accused of being one of those liberal big spenders who likes "class warfare."

And in case this isn't obvious, also note who feels the brunt of these decisions. When schools are closed on Fridays, middle-class families feel an added burden they can hardly afford: "For those 17 Fridays, parents reluctantly worked from home or used up vacation and sick days. Others enlisted the help of grandparents. Many paid $25 to $50 per child each week for the new child care programs that had sprung up."

When bus systems are shut down, wealthier folks with cars are fine, but low-income workers who need a way to get to work are out of luck. When street lights are turned off and police officers are furloughed, families in gated communities and private security are probably feeling a lot better off than everyone else.

And all of this is happening, right here in the wealthiest country on earth.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the ongoing efforts among political conservatives to oppose construction of the Cordoba House in lower Manhattan, most notably the efforts of a right-wing legal group called the American Center for Law and Justice.

If you're unfamiliar with the ACLJ, it was created by radical TV preacher Pat Robertson to operate as the opposite of the ACLU. And this week, the ACLJ, which claims to be committed to religious liberty, filed suit to prevent the construction of a religious community center. To rationalize their efforts, the group's lawyers said they're not bigots, they're just worried about the historic significance of the building -- which used to house a Burlington Coat Factory store.

As John Cook reported this week, the ACLJ and its cohorts "have a history of arguing in court that local governments can't use laws like that to prevent houses of worship from being built."

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the legal advocacy group leading the charge, has argued repeatedly and forcefully in federal court on at least three occasions that local land-use laws like historical landmark designations don't trump the religious and property rights of religious groups to build houses of worship. So has the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which controversially came out in opposition to the mosque last week. The group has filed no less than five amicus briefs in federal court arguing that local governments can't use zoning laws to prevent the building of churches and synagogues.

Indeed, these groups all compose part of a large ecosystem of religious rights organizations; members of such groups have made frequent use of a federal law that erects significant barriers for local governments seeking to interfere with religious buildings. With few exceptions, in the case of Cordoba House, these groups have either been silent or directly contradicted their own history of statements and action.

Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000 at the urging of religious rights groups. The law creates strong protections for churches and other houses of worship from local governments using zoning and other land-use laws to restrict them, essentially saying that if local municipalities interfere with religious institutions, they'd better have a very good reason for doing it.

So far, the bigots and their boosters can't think of a good reason, and "We think Muslims are bad" isn't exactly a compelling argument in court.

More to the point, in the case of the ACLJ, what if a Christian group were trying to build a facility at this exact same location? Would the group be rushing to court to block its construction out of concern for the historic significance of the building? This week, an ACLJ official admitted the group would not.

It's about bigotry, plain and simple. The right is barely trying to hide it.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Leading religious right groups are organizing to support the extension of Bush's tax cuts. It's as if the groups asked "What would Jesus do?" and decided to do the opposite.

* Terrorists attacked the Pentagon on 9/11, and yet Muslims have been allowed to pray -- not two blocks away -- but in the actual building. Will Gingrich, Palin, and Giuliani let this stand?

* And fascinating new research shows that members of the clergy "suffer from obesity, hypertension and depression at rates higher than most Americans. In the last decade, their use of antidepressants has risen, while their life expectancy has fallen. Many would change jobs if they could." (thanks to reader D.J. for the tip)

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

A BREAKTHROUGH WEEK IN THE GULF.... It wasn't too long ago that developments in the Gulf of Mexico were the single most important news story in the country. The hypnotic live feed of gushing oil was oddly popular; every update was considered breaking national news; and the anticipation for the day that the immediate crisis would finally be brought under control was palpable.

It comes as something of a surprise, then, that this week's developments weren't a bigger deal. In recent days, the well has effectively been shut down entirely -- ahead of schedule. Work on the final relief well will take about a week, and offer a permanent solution, but it's been about three weeks since oil stopped flowing into the Gulf, and all of the news of late has been encouraging.

This was a busy news week, but shouldn't these developments, long sought by a desperate nation, be cause for slightly more relief? Or did the political world that speculated about the oil spill bringing down the Obama presidency decide that the crisis is so last month that good news doesn't matter as much as bad news?

James Carville conceded yesterday that no Democrat was "as tough on the Obama administration" as the ordeal unfolded. Now Carville believes the president deserves credit for "a much improved and vigorous response to the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf."

[L]et's review the bidding: First, the decision to keep the unflappable retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen in place as national incident commander, in spite of considerable opposition from some local politicians, has proven to be wise.

Second, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced a criminal investigation into the BP disaster, it was a demonstration that the Obama administration meant business in dealing with this catastrophe.

Third, the establishment of the $20 billion restitution fund administered by Ken Feinberg was the ultimate statement of the seriousness with which this situation was being addressed by the administration.

Fourth, people who have deep knowledge of the events in the Gulf give substantial credit to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other experts from government labs who were brought in to assist with the successful capping of the well.

Obviously, when I refer to the good news of this week, I'm only talking about the immediacy of the well that was gushing. The larger problems, of course, still exist, and it would exacerbate a tragedy if the needs of the Gulf Coast region were forgotten now that the Macondo well has been shut down. In the short term, retrieving millions of feet of boom is a top priority, as is the health of cleanup workers, many of whom were exposed to toxic chemicals. Needless to say, the ecological, environmental, and even economic effects of the disaster are still largely unknown, and will require years of diligence.

But a lot of us were waiting a long while for that well to be shut down, and there's nothing wrong with being glad that this day has arrived.

As for the politics, for all the palaver about Spock and butt-kicking, Obama steadily delivered the results that we needed and expected, at least for now. Given that his Republican detractors effectively took BP's side during the crisis, it should set up an interesting debate for the campaign season.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

LEAVING TOLERANCE IN A MUSEUM.... My understanding of the meaning of the word "tolerance" may be off, but it's more likely I'm not the one who's confused.

The Museum of Tolerance opened in Manhattan this week, on a mission to help the world transcend discrimination and prejudice. Great timing, because there's been a lot of that lately, with angry opponents to the proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero deriding the project as a "house of evil" where terrorists will "worship their monkey-god." Thankfully, the Museum of Tolerance is here to advocate for acceptance join the opposition. Looks like tolerance really does belong in a museum, eh eh?

The museum is funded by The Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization. Rabbi Meyer May, the Wiesenthal Center's executive director, tells Crain's the proposed location is "insensitive" to the families of 9/11 victims, adding that "religious freedom does not mean being insensitive...or an idiot. Religion is supposed to be beautiful.... Why create pain in the name of religion?"

This is, by the way, the same Wiesenthal Center that, in 2006, built a museum on top of an old Muslim burial ground in Jerusalem. It "created pain," but that apparently didn't matter at the time.

In related news, reader J.C. alerted me to an item from Fareed Zakaria, who was honored five years ago by the Anti-Defamation League's Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. In light of the ADL's inexplicable, incoherent opposition to the Cordoba House, Zakaria has decided to return the award and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it.

That was an honorable move on Zakaria's part, which says a lot about his character. It's good to know that while controversies like these can sometimes bring out the worst among the small-minded among us, we can still find examples of courage and honor.

Update: The ADL has responded to Zakaria, and in a bizarre twist, has begun to question the motives of those who wish to build the Muslim community center. Dear ADL, quit while you're behind.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 6, 2010

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The finishing touches: "BP is confirming that it plans to use a relief well to shove mud and then cement into the underground reservoir feeding the blown-out Gulf of Mexico well.... Crews have already plugged up the well from the top with mud and cement. But federal officials want BP to plug it from the bottom to make sure it's permanently sealed."

* In light of the disappointing monthly jobs report, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, urged Congress to act swiftly on pending jobs bills. "[T]oday's employment report emphasizes just how important the additional jobs measures before Congress are," Romer said. "In addition to the state fiscal relief nearing passage, the president strongly supports the small business jobs bill and targeted incentives for clean energy investments."

* In related news, Romer won't be making her case much longer: she's stepping down from her post next month.

* The first bill on tap when the Senate returns? The small business incentives measure Republicans blocked last week.

* After an odd week of on-again/off-again holds, the Senate approved James Clapper's nomination as the new director of national intelligence.

* In an unexpected win for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate also approved a $600 million border-security bill late yesterday.

* Democrats not only expanded the G.I. Bill, they're also making the program more effective.

* I like Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), but his opposition to filibuster reform is very hard to understand.

* I don't like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and his aversion to our reality is even harder to understand.

* Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) finally said something about the proposed Cordoba House today. But his message was so cryptic, I'm still not sure what his position is.

* Eva Rodriguez is right; Marc Thiessen can be pretty crazy.

* I'm not sure how anyone can continue to defend the merits of the half-century-old Cuban trade embargo.

* Breitbart parts ways with Kevin Pezzi, concludes that Pezzi's work does not reflect "the principles and values" of his far-right hatchet-job website.

* Given Liz Cheney advocacy work, isn't it unethical for her to guest-host for Sean Hannity? It would, if Fox News had any professional standards at all.

* I know being a Republican tracker isn't glamarous work, but the right really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel this year. "Spencer" should probably pursue some other line of work.

* As if the RNC's scandals weren't enough, a longtime employee of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is filing a lawsuit, accusing Republican officials with creating a hostile environment for both of the NRSC's African-American employees.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

KILLING THE PIGFORD SETTLEMENT (OVER AND OVER AGAIN).... President Obama announced something called the Pigford II settlement nearly six months ago. The agreement is a $1.15 billion settlement to compensate thousands of African-American farmers who faced decades of discrimination at the hands of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Repeatedly in recent months, the Senate Democratic leadership has tried to attach the Pigford measure to various spending bills, and in every instance, Republicans demanded it be removed. Every time it looked like the settlement might pass, the GOP made sure it didn't. Every time Republicans made a new demand, Democrats met it, but it didn't matter.

Yesterday, the leadership tried again, only to see Republicans block the settlement -- twice. Rachel Slajda reports:

After being attached to and stripped from a variety of bills over the past few months, it seemed like it would pass before recess, and Majority Leader Harry Reid met twice in the past 10 days with John Boyd, the head of the National Black Farmers Association. But it just didn't happen.

Yesterday's failures came in the form of two objections to two unanimous consent requests. Senate leaders had tied the Pigford II money to another settlement, known as Cobell, which would grant $3.4 billion to Native Americans whose land trust accounts were mishandled by the government.

But Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the ranking member on the Indian Affairs Committee, objected. He objected because, in the settlement by the courts, there's a $100 million cap on lawyers' fees. He wants the fees capped at $50 million.

Barrasso argues that changing the cap would benefit the plaintiffs by allowing more of the settlement money to go directly to them, and he's gone so far as to introduce new legislation to that effect. But because the settlement has already been agreed to by all parties, if it's changed, it will have to go back to court for a hearing.

The settlement is now five months overdue. Dems will try again in September, but I'd bet $1.15 billion Republicans will find more excuses to kill it.

Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

SETTING THE BAR TOO LOW.... Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is often held in high regard by the political establishment, especially in the media, in part because he seems more impressive than his House Republican colleagues. Ryan speaks in complete sentences; he seems to care about substance; and unlike everyone else in his party, he's even willing to put his ideas on paper and subject them to scrutiny.

And if that's all that were necessary to constitute a credible member of Congress, Paul Ryan would certainly be deserving of the accolades he's received. But it's really a classic example of the soft bigotry of low expectations -- all it takes for the establishment to swoon over a Republican is evidence that he may have read a book once. Granted, this is a test most leading GOP voices fail, but it's unwise to set the bar this low.

What really matters is whether the "genius of the day" has ideas with merit, whether his/her numbers add up, and whether stated plans would work (and for whom). In the case of Paul Ryan and his "Roadmap for America's Future," it's a test he fails badly.

Paul Krugman tries to set Ryan's fans straight today.

...Mr. Ryan may speak about the deficit in apocalyptic terms, but even if you believe that his proposed spending cuts are feasible -- which you shouldn't -- the Roadmap wouldn't reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

And I do mean slash. The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan's total tax cuts. That's not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.

Finally, let's talk about those spending cuts. In its first decade, most of the alleged savings in the Ryan plan come from assuming zero dollar growth in domestic discretionary spending, which includes everything from energy policy to education to the court system. This would amount to a 25 percent cut once you adjust for inflation and population growth. How would such a severe cut be achieved? What specific programs would be slashed? Mr. Ryan doesn't say.

Ryan does say that he intends to dismantle Medicare, but no one seriously believes this is possible -- politically, economically, financially -- which makes the foundation of the Ryan "roadmap" literally unbelievable.

I realize the political world loves to latch onto Republican personalities like this, and overlook all relevant details and evidence, but as Krugman concluded, the "Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future."

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

GETTING THE MORAL OF THE ETHICS STORY BACKWARDS.... For 12 years, there was a House Republican majority, and during that time the chamber's ethics committee was something of a joke. There was little interest in pursuing allegations, no matter how serious, and even less interest in actually punishing culpable lawmakers. The ethics panel existed, but it was little more than a fraud.

When Democrats regained the majority, they decided it was time to take lawmaker misconduct seriously again. Indeed, the fact that Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) are facing ethics charges right now is a direct result of Democrats' commitment to do what Republicans wouldn't do -- police their own.

Joe Conason had a terrific piece on this today.

Back when the Republicans controlled the House, however, their stewardship of ethical standards was a pitiful sham. They set the coverup agenda when they voted in November 2004 to withhold any sanctions against Tom DeLay, then the House majority leader, even if he were to be indicted on a felony count. Naturally they held that vote in secrecy, just after the presidential election, because they represent honesty, transparency and apple pie. (Eventually a surge of public outrage forced them to restore the Democrats' old rule requiring an indicted member to step down.)

Rather than punish DeLay, the Republican majority purged their decent colleagues on the ethics committee who had voted to admonish him -- and replaced them with pliable stooges, including Rep. Tom Cole, now a deputy whip under Minority Leader John Boehner. Their only notable achievement was to stall inquiries into the revolting behavior of Mark Foley, Randy Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney, failing to investigate even as the latter two were on their way to prison (a fate that Foley narrowly escaped). Indeed, during the Republicans' tenure, five representatives were convicted of felonies, three more were indicted, and a dozen were reportedly subjects of FBI probes -- while they literally did nothing.

So will someone please explain how the ascension of Boehner, Cole and their cohort would improve the ethical climate in the House?

It's the principal reason the GOP's Rangel/Waters talking points don't make sense. In order for the argument to be coherent, Republicans would need to characterize these two as part of a larger pattern of party-wide corruption. But that doesn't make any sense -- Rangel and Waters are facing charges, not because Democrats don't take ethics allegations seriously, but because Democrats do take ethics allegations seriously, far more so than the previous GOP majorities.

Pelosi & Co. brought much-needed reforms and accountability to the chamber, and now the same Republicans who shamed themselves with their culture of corruption -- remember when John Boehner literally walked the House floor, handing out checks from the tobacco industry to candidates who voted the "right" way? -- think they have the standing to complain now.

As usual, they have it backwards. "Voters have plenty of reasons to feel frustrated and angry this year, but ethics reform is not among them," Conason noted.

Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share

LAME-DUCK LUNACY.... Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee and one of Congress' more humiliating buffoons, demanded this week that there should be no post-election session on the Hill, no matter what work might need to be done.

Price is even pushing a resolution on the matter: "This No Lame Duck resolution will allow our Democrat [sic] colleagues to make it clear whether or not they plan to govern in accordance with the will of the American people or in spite of it."

Price is hardly alone. House Republicans have been nearly hysterical for weeks, warning of all kinds of nefarious schemes that Democrats might hatch after the election. Tea Partiers, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and Newt Gingrich are all obsessed -- working feverishly to oppose the existence of a lame-duck session.

It's all rather bizarre. For one thing, the same legislative dynamic that exists now will exist until the next Congress is sworn in. Bills that can't pass now won't magically be able to pass in November and December.

For another, as we've talked about before, the 1998 midterms were largely a repudiation of the Republicans' impeachment crusade against then-President Bill Clinton. House Republicans responded to the election results by impeaching the president anyway -- relying on a lame-duck session to ram articles through the chamber quickly, before newly-elected lawmakers could take office. This year's cries are pretty tough to take seriously given recent history.

And finally, as Dave Weigel noted today, the GOP panic just isn't rational.

On Tuesday, in an attempt to debunk the lame-duck panic, Politico's Jonathan Martin discovered, in plain sight, "a host of moderate Democrats who will be on the ballot in 2012 and aren't going to have any more appetite to take a difficult vote." Another factor that hurts the Democrats -- one that didn't hurt Gingrich in 1998 -- is the Senate's method of installing new members. The winners of elections in Illinois, Delaware, Colorado, New York, and West Virginia will be replacing appointed senators, and their terms will begin right away. We won't have Roland Burris to kick around anymore, but Democrats might have to deal with a Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who'd be as likely to support card check as he'd be to emigrate to Luxembourg.

Republicans find the strangest things to get hysterical about.

Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

THE NUTTIEST OF THEM ALL.... It looks like Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, is generating quite a few headlines today. Let's see, there's her ties to radicals...

As Jon Ralston reports, Nevada's Republican nominee for Senate will be headlining a Tea Party event Saturday in San Diego promoted by a far-right doctors group -- a group that has itself promoted all sorts of wild conspiracy theories.

The event this Saturday, the National Doctors Tea Party, is promoted by a group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Among the AAPS's greatest hits: They have stated that the establishment of Medicare in 1965 was "evil" and "immoral"; They have denied the link between HIV and AIDS; they have dabbled in birtherism; they have argued that President Obama may have used "covert hypnosis" to rally his crowds; and have suggested that the Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional.

...her unwillingness to touch campaign contributions she considers gay...

Sharron Angle has taken some extreme positions, but this one is remarkable even by her standards: She said on a candidate questionnaire that she would refuse political contributions from a private company that backs equal rights for gays and extends benefits to partners of gay employees.

...her support for allowing public school teachers to offer their religious beliefs in classrooms...

[O]n school prayer she believes that teachers should be able to talk about religion and "publicly acknowledge the Creator."

...her beliefs that children are better off in orphanages than with loving parents of the same gender...

[S]he opposes any laws that would enable gays to adopt children.

...and her belief that tax-exempt houses of worship should feel free to intervene in political campaigns, despite existing federal law.

The federal government bans churches from participating in political campaigns on behalf of candidates, but Angle said clergy should be able to express views on candidates from the pulpit.

Sharron Angle is quite a candidate, isn't she? I've argued that she's the most radical major-party candidate to seek statewide office since David Duke was the Republican nominee for governor in Louisiana in 1991, and with each passing day, that assessment continues to look more credible.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

THAT'S ONE.... Over the last month or so, there's been an aggressive push among Republican leaders to insist that tax cuts don't need to be paid for, because they pay for themselves. This notion -- often characterized as belief in the Tax Fairy -- isn't taken seriously by any credible economist or expert, and was even rejected by Bush/Cheney economists, but has quickly become the standard GOP tax policy in 2010.

Indeed, when Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) got the ball rolling on this point, he insisted that his bizarre views are endorsed by "most of the people in my party." And sure enough, Republicans rallied behind the obvious nonsense.

I couldn't find a single GOP lawmaker in D.C. willing to reject this garbage. It's only fair, then, that I mention that one has finally shown up.

A number of old Republican hands warning of a deficit crisis have split with the GOP leadership over extending the George W. Bush-era tax cuts.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), President Reagan's budget chief David Stockman and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan have each argued that extending the tax cuts -- set to expire at year's end -- would increase the nation's $13 trillion debt.

"It's like tax reductions, you don't need to pay for them? To me, that's nonsense," Voinovich said.

OK, that's one. A grand total of one GOP member of Congress is willing to acknowledge, out loud and on the record, that the basis for the party's tax policy doesn't actually make any sense.

Of course, Voinovich is retiring from politics this year, and need not worry about reprisals. When lawmakers head out the door, their appreciation for candor seems to go up. Imagine that.

Of course, it would have been far more helpful had Voinovich acknowledge reality far sooner -- say, when he was voting for the Bush/Cheney policies that got us in this mess in the first place. For that matter, it's also worth emphasizing the limits of Voinovich's wisdom -- he realizes the Tax Fairy doesn't exist, but he's nevertheless fought vehemently against every Democratic measure in this Congress that reduces the deficit and grows the economy.

Still, credit where credit is due. I asked for one Republican to acknowledge reality, and one has. How very exciting for us all.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

IMAGINING THE NEXT CONFIRMATION FIGHT.... It's funny to think about it now, soon after Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, the conventional wisdom was that Elena Kagan was the kind of nominee even Republicans could accept. Indeed, some of the strongest criticism of Kagan was coming from the left, not the right.

As we saw yesterday, she ended up with 63 confirmation votes in the Senate, including only five out of 41 GOP members. Historically, that's pretty low, especially give how uncontroversial Kagan's nomination was. Republican opposition was based on largely nothing.

Whether President Obama will have another opportunity to fill a high court vacancy is unclear, but the trend in the Senate isn't encouraging. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been head of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, and she garnered 96 votes in Clinton's first term. Now, Kagan could only muster 63 votes, and Republicans didn't lay a glove on her.

"We are well on our way to a huge train wreck," veteran Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein said. "I do think this is a corner we won't be able to turn back [from], or at least there's no sign the Senate will turn back from, for a long time." If 60 "yes" votes "is the best anyone is going to have, a Supreme Court confirmation fight could easily turn into thermonuclear war."

Jay Bookman added that yesterday's vote was "an ominous sign, confirming a sense that American government is coming close to a breakdown."

Of course, all of this dealt with a center-left justice being replaced with another center-left justice under a center-left president. Jeff Greenfield recently considered what would happen if Obama had a chance to replace one of the Supreme Court's five conservatives.

[I]magine it's 2011, and the Senate has become more Republican than it is now; And imagine that Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia -- or Roberts or Alito or even Anthony Kennedy (the "swing justice") -- has to leave the bench.

For conservatives, anyone likely to be picked by President Obama's will represent a dramatic shift on the Court. Why? Because many of the Court's recent controversial decisions -- on gun rights, late-term abortions, corporate campaign spending -- were 5-4 votes. The impact of an Obama-chosen justice replacing a conservative on the Court would be far, far more consequential than Sotomayor for Souter or Kagan for Stevens.

And that means that the confirmation struggle is likely to go "nuclear."

Given what we've seen, it seems to be a mortal lock that Republicans would filibuster any Obama nominee chosen to replace a conservative. In fact, I suspect the GOP would be satisfied to simply allow the Supreme Court to just go with eight justices indefinitely.

And the fact that this seems entirely plausible is a reminder of how far Republicans have moved in a short period of time. As we talked about yesterday, just two years ago, John McCain noted, "When President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make."

The GOP simply doesn't believe this anymore. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who backed Kagan yesterday and Sotomayor last year, said, "Things are changing. I worry the direction we're drifting."

He's not the only one.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* Two more extreme candidates in Tennessee's gubernatorial primary effectively knocked each other out, clearing the way for Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam to win the GOP nomination. He'll face businessman Mike McWherter (D) in November.

* Also in Tennessee, Rep. Steve Cohen (D) easily won his primary fight against former Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, who hoped to make the election about race. It didn't work.

* The DSCC is now weighing whether to give up entirely on Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D) struggling re-election bid in Arkansas.

* Colorado's Democratic Senate primary may experience a shake-up in light of reports that Denver's school system, in 2008, relied on an "exotic" financial transaction that put the district in deeper debt. Sen. Michael Bennet (D) was superintendent of the school system at the time.

* Speaking of Colorado, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D), this year's Democratic gubernatorial nominee, has asked university president Joe Garcia to be his running mate. Garcia would be the state's first Hispanic lieutenant governor.

* Despite being a D.C. corporate lobbyist, Dan Coats (R) is still leading Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) in Indiana's U.S. Senate race, 50% to 35%.

* In Florida, the latest Mason-Dixon polls show Rick Scott leading the Republican gubernatorial primary, and Jeff Greene leading the Democratic Senate primary.

* Scott, meanwhile, is being accused of hiding details about nearly a dozen lawsuits, which portray his company "as a ruthless employer who discriminated or cut corners in pursuit of profit."

* In Arizona, U.S. Senate candidate John Dougherty has accused his Democratic primary challenger, Rodney Glassman, "of being homophobic, and said he needs to address a comment he made about openly gay Tucson Councilwoman Karin Uhlich."

* And speaking of Arizona, former Vice President Dan Quayle's son, Ben Quayle, is a 33-year old Republican congressional candidate, with a new direct mail piece. It shows him with two young girls, along with text that notes how proud he is to be raising his family in the district. The mailing is drawing attention, though, because the girls in the picture are someone else's daughters.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

LIKE BANGING ONE'S HEAD AGAINST A WALL.... The real problem in the latest job numbers are in the public sector. The 71,000 private-sector jobs created is an underwhelming total, to be sure, but what made the new employment so discouraging was the public sector layoffs.

Republicans, giddy as sugar-fueled children about bad news for the country, consider the discouraging jobs report evidence of their superior economic philosophy. What's likely to be entirely overlooked is that the opposite is true -- with each passing month, we're reminded of how incredibly, demonstrably, painfully wrong Republicans are when it comes to economic policy.

For quite a while, Democrats have said the government needed to intervene to prevent the job losses we're seeing now. Republicans refused. To be sure, the job market would need to be stronger in either case, but the GOP is entirely responsible for holding the job market's head below water -- and yet, they're also the ones gloating. It's maddening.

Matt Yglesias' item on this today bears repeating:

The losses came from the public sector. And they were foreseeable. And they were foreseen by the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the United States Senate and the majority of House members and a majority of Senators. And the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the United States Senate and the majority of House members and a majority of Senators voted for bills that would have prevented that. But because in the Senate a minority of members can get their way, action wasn't taken. Consequently, we have a horrible jobs number. Which would be bad enough, but the way the American political system works, the minority party that prevented the majority from addressing the crisis will accrue massive political benefits as a result of the collapse.

Conservatives won't admit it today, but what we're looking at is a major breakdown of the logic of the American political system.

We're not only rewarding those who were wrong and punishing those who were right, we're also tolerating a system that gives those who were wrong the ability to block those who were right from doing what needs to be done.

Maybe Republicans are deliberately trying to sabotage the economy, maybe they're just overwhelmingly confused. I really don't know. The result, though, is the same either way -- the GOP got us into this mess; the GOP fought efforts that made things better; and the GOP continues to stand in the way of efforts that would get us out of the hole they dug.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

A PARTY WITHOUT GROWN-UPS.... The Weekly Standard reports today that three U.S. senators have come out against a proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan: Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Hopes that a Republican grown-up will help bring some decency and maturity to the party continue to fade.

Isakson said he has "a serious concern that [the community center] serves any good purpose." I have no idea what that means. McCain said a community center "would harm relations." Whatever.

And what about Snowe, one of the ostensible "moderates"?

Snowe's concern with the proposed project lies with the families of those who were murdered by the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center. "I think there should be particular sensitivities to the families," Snowe told me as she was getting on an elevator after the Senate voted to confirm Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. "It is insensitive to the families."

Whose families? Why would any victims' families be bothered by a religious leader committed to fighting extremism building a community center?

All of this, again, is predicated on the notion that there are no distinctions to be made between Islam and radical terrorists who embrace a twisted version of Islam. This is what Osama bin Laden and other lunatics hope to see from the West, and this is what Republicans continue to offer.

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

IGNORING AN ALARM.... In light of the latest discouraging jobs report -- the third consecutive month in which the job totals were disappointing -- there's an obvious course ahead. Heidi Shierholz, an economist from the Economic Policy Institute, said, "The economic case for more government action to create jobs is about as clear as they come."

Right. It's painfully obvious. The problem is staring us right in the face. And yet, nothing will happen because our political system is such a mess.

Significant action in the Senate is obviously out of the question, since the chamber is largely paralyzed. But the House has its own problem -- panicky Democrats who are afraid to do the right thing. Politico reports that some of these hand-wringing Dems might even be afraid to help save school teachers' jobs next week.

When the House returns next week to rubber-stamp the Senate's $26 billion state-aid package, Democrats will take a political crapshoot.

Even though party leaders expect that approval will be a slam-dunk, some early responses from rank-and-file Democrats have raised red flags about the optics of returning to a special session to vote on more spending -- even if it's framed as saving teachers' jobs.

The risk for Democrats as they seek to bolster their flagging election prospects is that some of their vulnerable members will feel like they have to walk the plank, yet again, on a politically unpopular economic-stimulus agenda, while reminding voters of their failure to handle routine budget work this year.

This really is crazy. With the economy sputtering, here's a bill that will help prevent tens of thousands of layoffs, including school teachers and firefighters. It's paid for, and won't add a dime to the deficit. It enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate, and even Ben Nelson voted for it.

But for some panicky House Dems, saving jobs means spending money, and "spending = bad." Why? Because Republicans say so.

This need not be complicated. These frightened Democrats think spending is unpopular? Here's something that's more unpopular -- unemployment and an economy moving in the wrong direction. Republicans have these Dems so rattled, they're afraid of the disease and the cure.

Passing the state-aid bill should be the easiest of no-brainers, but the fact that even this is problematic makes ambitious policymaking impossible. Ideally, right now, Democrats should be preparing a massive jobs bill, without any concern at all for the deficit. When asked if they consider job growth more important than the deficit, Dems should be bold about it: "You're damn right we do."

None of this will happen; economic conditions will drag Democrats down further; and Republicans who are hopelessly backwards about the basics will be rewarded for their dangerous ignorance.

Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

CANTOR CHOOSES NOT TO CELEBRATE GOOD NEWS.... President Obama has spent a fair amount of time the last couple of weeks talking up the rejuvenation of the American auto industry. There's obviously some political elements to the effort -- the White House wants to emphasize good economic news where it can be found, and more importantly, it wants to remind the public that at a moment of crisis last year, Obama was right about the industry rescue and Republicans were wrong.

With that in mind, the president visited a Ford plant in Illinois yesterday, and continued to tout the success story. A Democratic official alerted me to an inexplicable reaction from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

"So as President Obama prepares to take another victory lap, who exactly is President Obama celebrating with?" asked a statement issued by the office of Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip.

I don't know, Eric, shouldn't you be celebrating with him?

Look, I know it's an election season, and I know Eric Cantor isn't the sharpest crayon in the box. But the easiest, most basic form of patriotism is taking at least some pleasure when good things happen to your country.

In this case, thanks to the Obama administration, the industry has added 55,000 jobs -- the best growth in the industry in over a decade. All three American automakers are operating at a profit for the first time since 2004.

Sure, Republicans don't want to talk about this -- in part because good news interferes with their election strategy, and in part because this progress wouldn't have happened if they were in charge last year. Indeed, if we'd listened to Cantor and his cohorts, 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 had it backwards.

But that's no excuse for Cantor's petty partisanship. Who is President Obama celebrating with? The workers who have jobs that would have been lost, the plants that are humming that would have been shut down, the regional economies that couldn't have sustained another hit, and the entire industry that would have very likely collapsed were it not for Obama's intervention.

The question isn't why the president is celebrating good news; the question is why Eric Cantor chooses not to.

Republicans rooting for American failure is unseemly. I'd hoped Cantor & Co. realized that by now.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

YET ANOTHER DISCOURAGING JOBS REPORT.... With the Census Bureau continuing to shed workers, there was no real doubt that in July, as in June, the latest jobs report would show a loss of jobs in the economy. The question was how many, and how the private sector numbers would look.

Private employers added new workers at a weak pace for the third straight month, making it more likely economic growth will slow in the coming months. The jobless rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent.

The Labor Department said Friday that companies added a net total of 71,000 jobs in July, far below the roughly 200,000 needed each month to reduce the unemployment rate.

Overall, the economy lost a net total of 131,000 jobs last month, as 143,000 temporary census jobs ended.

The relatively good news is that private-sector job growth exists, and it was a little higher in July than in the previous two months. In May, private-sector job gains totaled 51,000; in June the number was 31,000; and in July it was 71,000. We've now seen seven consecutive months of job growth in the private sector, a streak we haven't seen in a long while.

The bad news is this isn't remotely good enough to help generate a sustained economic recovery.

Adding insult to injury, as discouraging as these numbers are -- and have been in recent months -- there's no reason to think policymakers will intervene to help. Congressional Republicans have made it clear that deficit reduction and spending cuts have to take priority over economic growth, and the GOP will block votes on recovery efforts, even if Democrats were to propose them. Indeed, in July, government jobs fell by 202,000 -- which was preventable, if there was the political will to do something about it, or the legislative ability to overcome Republican obstructionism.

For what it's worth, the job numbers for May and June were downwards, one far more than the other. While previous estimates showed the economy adding 433,000 jobs in May, the updated total was a gain of 432,000. June, however, was even worse than previously believed, revised from 125,000 lost jobs in the most to a loss of 221,000.

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.

jobs_jul10.jpg

Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

SENATE APPROVES SWEEPING CHILD NUTRITION BILL.... There was a flurry of Senate activity this week, as members prepared to leave town for a month-long recess, but the success of the child nutrition bill shouldn't get lost in the shuffle. It was a policy win for kids and public health, and a political win for nutrition advocates and First Lady Michelle Obama, who championed the effort.

The Senate on Thursday approved a long-awaited child nutrition act that intends to feed more hungry kids and make school food more nutritious, and it provides for $4.5 billion over the next decade to make that happen.

Called the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, it passed the Senate unanimously and now moves on to the House, where passage is also expected. National child nutrition programs are set to expire on September 30.

The legislation will expand the number of low-income children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals, largely by streamlining the paperwork required to receive the meals. And it will expand a program to provide after-school meals to at-risk children.

Most notably, for the first time in nearly four decades, lawmakers approved "the first non-inflationary increase in the reimbursement rate for federal-sponsored school meals -- the amount local districts are repaid by the federal government."

Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said, "The Senate bill changes the school food landscape in ways that are all positive. Put simply, it will get junk food out of, and put more healthy food into, America's schools. It preserves the free and reduced-cost meals that many families depend on in an economic downturn."

Annie Lowrey posted some additional details from the Senate Agriculture Committee on what the bill does, including expanded after-school meals for at-risk children and increased eligibility for school meals.

In this toxic political environment, there aren't many bills -- even deficit-neutral, common-sense proposals -- that can pass with unanimous support. It's a nice way for the Senate to wrap up the pre-recess session.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 5, 2010

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* It's working: "BP says engineers have finished plugging the blown-out Gulf of Mexico well with cement in their effort to permanently seal it."

* After breaking a GOP filibuster yesterday, the Senate approved the state aid/jobs bill this afternoon. The final vote was 61 to 39.

* Discouraging: "This morning, the Department of Labor said that initial jobless claims edged up last week, from 460,000 to 479,000. Economists expected the number of claims to decrease. The weekly figure is the highest since April."

* Al-Shabab is clearly trying to appeal to Somali Americans: "Federal indictments unsealed Thursday in Minnesota, Alabama and California charge 14 people with terrorism offenses for allegedly aiding the radical Islamist al-Shabab organization in Somalia."

* The Affordable Care Act has "strengthened Medicare's financial condition," with the Medicare trust fund "predicted to last a dozen years longer than expected a year ago, according to a new government forecast." I'll look forward to Republicans explaining why this is a bad thing.

* On a related note, there's no Social Security crisis, either.

* So much for net neutrality? "Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege." Google is denying the accuracy of the story.

* In related news: "The Federal Communications Commission Thursday suspended its weeks-long series of talks with Internet providers on net neutrality, dealing a blow to efforts to produce a deal that the agency could take to Congress."

* Senate Republicans are now once again blocking the nomination of James Clapper to be director of national intelligence.

* Can cramdown make a comeback?

* Stepping up in support of 99ers: "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would provide extra weeks of benefits to people who've reached the end of their unemployment insurance lifelines."

* Target is sorry about its right-wing campaign contribution.

* Fascinating story about conservatives playing a rigged game with Digg.

* Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) takes a firm stance against the "shameful and divisive" tactics from the right against the Cordoba House.

* Making it a little easier to see how colleges spend their money.

* Karl Rove guest hosting for Rush Limbaugh. Imagine that.

* Fox News really should be able to tell the difference between Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Shirley Sherrod. The network doesn't have many African-American viewers, but this is just sad. (thanks to reader D.D. for the tip)

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS.... It would be wildly inappropriate to suggest conservatives and Middle Eastern terrorists are somehow similar, or even to draw moral equivalencies. It is worth noting, though, that there are interesting rhetorical overlaps.

William Saletan highlights one of the more glaring examples.

In the years since 9/11, Osama Bin Laden has issued more than 20 audio and video statements to spread his view of the conflict between the United States and al-Qaida. According to his worldview, the U.S. represents Christianity, al-Qaida represents Muslims, Christians won't protect Muslims, the West hates mosques, peaceful coexistence is a fraud, and the "war on terrorism" is really a war on Islam. By spreading this message, Bin Laden works to turn Muslims against the U.S. and rally them to al-Qaida.

Now Bin Laden has an ally in this propaganda campaign: Newt Gingrich.

Over the past two weeks, in a series of articles and speeches, Gingrich has declared a religious war that suits al-Qaida's agenda almost perfectly. While denouncing "Islamists" rather than Islam, Gingrich has blurred the distinction by selecting as his initial target the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Everything Bin Laden says about the U.S., Gingrich validates. All you have to do is read their statements, side by side.

Saletan does just that. It's worth taking a look.

This is part of a larger post--9/11 trend, but in recent years, it's generally been limited to the right's criticism of Americans.

Dinesh D'Souza, for example, wrote an entire book devoted to arguing that terrorists are right about the problems with American culture. Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant -- and D'Souza concluded that they're absolutely correct. Indeed, D'Souza went so far as to argue that liberal Americans are at least partially to blame for 9/11 -- the left invited the attacks by reinforcing the beliefs al Qaeda had about the United States.

In one particularly memorable episode of "The Colbert Report," D'Souza conceded that he finds some of the critiques from radical, anti-American extremists persuasive.

Around the same time, Glenn Beck came to the same conclusion: "More and more Muslims now hate us all across the world, and it really has not a lot to do with anything other than our morals. The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We're a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts. Now I don't think that we should fly airplanes into buildings or behead people because of it, but that's the prevailing feeling of Muslims in the Middle East. And you know what? They're right."

And a few months later, the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan also seemed to agree with our enemies about America: "We make it too easy for those who want to hate us to hate us. We make ourselves look bad in our media, which helps future jihadists think that they must, by hating us, be good."

But some contingents within the right -- Gingrich, Palin, Giuliani, Liz Cheney -- are taking this further now, validating bin Laden's entire approach to dividing the world, getting Muslims to see things his way. Why Republicans want to help him is a mystery.

Again, just to clarify, this isn't intended as a question of their patriotism, only their sanity.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

ELENA KAGAN CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.... The Senate this afternoon confirmed Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, and she will join the high court this fall as the institution's 112th justice.

The Senate today confirmed Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, making her the fourth woman ever to serve as a justice.

The vote, which was likely senators' last order of business before a month-long recess, divided largely along party lines with 63 senators endorsing President Obama's second court pick and 37 opposed.

Kagan's ascension to the bench is expected to preserve the court's ideological balance following liberal Justice John Paul Stevens' retirement. It also marks the first time three female justices will sit on the high court at the same time.

One Democrat, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, broke ranks and voted with the minority, while five Republicans -- Collins, Graham, Gregg, Lugar, and Snowe -- voted in support of confirmation.

The vote comes nearly one year to the day after the Senate voted 68 to 31 to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, and in that vote, 9 of the Senate's 41 Republicans backed the president's nominee.

By modern standards, Justice Kagan's 63 confirmation votes isn't exactly an overwhelming display of support. Of the Supreme Court's nine current justices, 63 ranks fairly low -- Stevens (98), Kennedy (97), Scalia (98), Ginsburg (96), Breyer (87), Roberts (78), Sotomayor (68) had more, while only Thomas (52) and Alito (58) had fewer.

As for the politics, I'm reminded of something Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said two years ago about the Senate and high court nominees: "When President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make."

In the last 12 months, McCain voted against Sotomayor and Kagan.

Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

MEET DR. KEVIN PEZZI.... This report from Ben Dimiero and Eric Hananoki is so astounding, it pains me to realize it's true. Hell, I wish it weren't true -- because, really, the political world doesn't need another deranged wingnut -- but the report is incontrovertible.

In two posts on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment website, Dr. Kevin Pezzi smears Shirley Sherrod as a racist, claiming that "if someone deserves to be put on a pedestal for overcoming racism, it isn't Sherrod." The racism criticism is ironic coming from Pezzi, who has repeatedly used racial epithets like "Japs" and "Chinks," and claimed Native and African Americans should have been grateful for their subjugation by whites.

Pezzi, who says that "Breitbart asked me to write for BigGovernment.com," has a peculiar self-described history. Pezzi claims to be responsible for "over 850 inventions" and schemes such as a "magic bullet" for cancer, a "robotic chef," and sexual inventions like "penile enlargement techniques" and "ways to tighten the vagina" (because "men like women with tight vaginas"). Pezzi has started multiple websites, from term paper helpers to a sexual help site that answers "your questions about sexual attraction, pleasure, performance, and libido" (Pezzi is qualified to do so because "No doctor in the world knows more about sexual pleasure than I do").

Pezzi also claims to have "beaten Bill Gates" on a math aptitude test, turned down a blind date with Katie Couric, and says he's "bigger than some porno stars."

This really does just scratch the surface. If you're inclined to think conservative activists and Republican media personalities seem to be increasingly bizarre, go ahead and read up on Kevin Pezzi -- and appreciate the fact that he's probably the strangest of the strange.

In a follow-up piece, Simon Maloy notes that Pezzi also appears to have created "at least six fake MySpace profiles of women -- most of them featuring badly photoshopped stock images of models with large breasts -- claiming to be enthralled with Dr. Pezzi and his sex books.... And don't for one second think that this creepiness is limited just to MySpace. We've also turned up two fake Twitter accounts belonging to 'Lynda W' and 'Jennie Simmons,' who tweet almost exclusively about their love of Dr. Pezzi's books."

Where do conservative media outlets find these guys?

Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

HEADS THEY WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE.... Time will tell what the Senate will look like next year, but chances are reasonably good that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will not be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

That said, it seems very likely that the Senate Republican caucus, currently at its lowest levels in a generation, will be considerably larger in the 112th Congress than it is now. And with that expectation in mind, McConnell has a vision of how policymaking should work.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Thursday that he hopes that President Obama becomes a born-again moderate after the midterm elections and that a new, more balanced Congress brings with it some bipartisan comity.

But the Kentucky Republican made it very clear that any future bipartisanship needs to be defined by his ideological terms.

"What I hope we are going to have after November is more balance, more balance, which would give us the opportunity to do things together that simply were missing when you have this kind of disparity," McConnell said. "But, I'm not going to be very interested in doing things left of center. It is going to have to be center right. I think the president is a flexible man. I'm hoping he will become a born-again moderate."

I've read this a few times, and I'm still struggling to wrap my head around it.

McConnell wants to see more partisan "balance" in the Senate, which presumably means more give and take between Democrats and Republicans. But in the next breath, McConnell also rules out the possibility of Democrats advancing any center-left priorities -- even in a Democratic majority. "It is going to have to be center right," he said. Why? Because McConnell says so.

In other words, "I'm willing to compromise with you, unless it means you getting some of what you want, in which case, forget it."

McConnell also expects the president to be a "moderate," but consider what that means in this context. In order for Obama to meet McConnell's standards, the president would have to agree to give up on his own voter-endorsed agenda entirely, and agree to accept only center-right ideas.

So, let me see if I get this straight.

* Voters elect a Republican president and a Republican Congress? The agenda "is going to have to be center right."

* Voters elect a Republican president and a Democratic Congress? The agenda "is going to have to be center right."

* Voters elect a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress? The agenda "is going to have to be center right."

* Voters re-elect a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress? The agenda "is going to have to be center right."

McConnell really should just drop the pretense and make this plain: he believes only Republicans should be allowed to govern, no matter what voters have to say.

Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

MCCONNELL SHOULD CHAT WITH GRAHAM.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said this morning that he still wants hearings to explore a possible, partial repeal of the 14th Amendment. "Why don't we take a look at it?" he told reporters.

But this is the part that stood out for me.

...McConnell said he was "not aware of anyone who's come out for altering the 14th Amendment."

Maybe McConnell should give Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a call.

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake.... 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 how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: "I got to."

McConnell isn't aware of "anyone who's come out for altering the 14th Amendment"? When a high-profile member of his own caucus told a national television audience on the Republicans' own cable news network "we should change our Constitution," that seems to qualify.

Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S THE INSTITUTION, NOT THE PERSONALITIES.... In his column today, David Broder agrees that the Senate is failing as legislative body. Noting George Packer's much discussed piece, "The Empty Chamber," the Washington Post columnist notes with a degree of sadness what's become of the chamber.

But Broder believes Packer overlooked an institutional problem:"Packer does as good a job as I have ever read of tracing the forces that have brought the Senate to its low estate. But he does not quite pinpoint the crucial factor: the absence of leaders who embody and can inculcate the institutional pride that once was the hallmark of membership in the Senate.... [I]t would be so much easier if there were leaders ready to lead."

I obviously can't speak for Packer, but I suspect this wasn't part of his piece because it's not nearly as important as Broder thinks it is.

For Broder, the Senate is failing, not because of institutional/framework flaws, but because of personalities -- if there were Senate "leaders," like the ones we had in the old days, the chamber could function.

cloture-stats-chart2.jpg

But that's a deeply flawed misdiagnosis. As Jon Chait noted, "In Broder's mind, the "crucial factor" is simply personal. There are no leaders. In the old days, there were leaders, now there aren't. The solution is to somehow get more leaders in the Senate who can inculcate their members with institutional pride, then things will return to the way they worked forty years ago. In other words, Broder looks at data like this and sees an institution that has simply had fewer and fewer good leaders as time has gone on."

But Broder's vision is belied by actual events. The parties have become more ideologically cohesive; Republicans have become more extreme; and procedural, obstructionist tactics that were once rare have become routine, bringing paralysis to a chamber that was designed to function by majority rule.

In 2009 -- just that one year -- there were more filibusters than in the entire 1950s and '60s combined. Seriously. "Leaders ready to lead" isn't the problem here.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

ANOTHER TALKING POINT BITES THE DUST.... In attacking the Recovery Act this week, Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, said Democrats spent tax dollars on "coked-up stimulus monkeys." Gee, those Dems must be some pretty wacky spendthrifts to use tax dollars for this, right?

Wrong. Angle got the idea from a report from Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), hoping to find wasted stimulus funds. McCain and Coburn put together a pretty weak report -- which the media just loved -- which included the charge that the administration spent $71,623 at a university on "Monkeys Getting High for Science."

The truth is less amusing.

[T]he report didn't tell you why the monkeys' reaction to cocaine is being studied: To develop our understanding of how the brain chemistry of addiction works, in order to better combat drug addiction.

Administration officials say this grant was part of the roughly $8 billion in stimulus grants that the National Institutes of Health has doled out for scientific research, with the goal of creating jobs while advancing scientific knowledge. This particular grant is based on recent studies showing that drug users may get addicted because of a chemical in the brain called glutamate.

This research on cocaine monkeys is meant to determine how the parts of the brain that use glutamate change during and after exposure to cocaine. The idea is that knowing this will help develop more effective treatments for cocaine addiction -- in people, not in monkeys.

All such grants are reviewed by NIH scientists to establish the scientific validity of the studies receiving funding.

This seems like entirely worthwhile research, addressing an important public need. Why would conservative Republicans find this wasteful?

In truth, they probably don't. This is just a pathetic little game from cynical Republicans hoping Americans just won't know the difference. McCain, Coburn, and Angle assume that voters will just hear the words "cocaine" and "monkey," and think the whole thing is hilarious. Just so long as no one asks obvious questions -- Does the GOP want human test subjects instead of monkeys? Does the GOP consider drug addiction unworthy of publicly-financed research? -- then the whole thing works as a campaign-season attack.

It's the kind of talking point that works for those who find thinking burdensome.

Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (61)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* There may be more than one reason for this, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) noted this morning that he will not travel to Nevada this year to campaign against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D). Indeed, McConnell was unequivocal: "I am not going to Nevada."

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, the pollster finds former Bush budget director Rob Portman leading Ohio's Senate race by four, topping Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D), 44% to 40%.

* On a related note, Rasmussen also shows the GOP leading in Ohio's gubernatorial race, with former Rep. John Kasich (R) up by three over incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), 45% to 42%.

* In still more Rasmussen-related news, the pollster finds Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading failed HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R) in California, 45% to 40%.

* In Kentucky, Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo (D) yesterday endorsed state Attorney General Jack Conway's (D) Senate campaign, but he didn't seem especially happy about it -- Conway defeated Mongiardo in a rather bitter primary fight.

* In Connecticut, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Ned Lamont leading Dan Malloy in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, 45% to 40%. The same poll finds Tom Foley as the leading Republican candidate in the race.

* And in Michigan, a Republican primary in Rep. Bart Stupak's (D) House district is coming down to literally just one vote. Something to consider the next time someone says one vote can't make a difference.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

RECUSALS FOR EVERYONE.... I know practically nothing about Judge Vaughan Walker, the jurist who ruled against California's ban on marriage equality yesterday, other than the fact that he was nominated to the federal bench by former President George H.W. Bush. The relevant considerations at this point involve the ruling, his reasoning, his adherence to the law, etc.

But for some on the right, Walker's sexual orientation is what really matters.

Fox News, for example, ran a piece from University of Notre Dame law professor Gerard Bradley, who expressed concern about the lack of attention paid "to one very troubling aspect of the case." (via A.L.)

This is the question of the judge's bias due to his possible interest in which side wins the case. [...]

Battalions of commentators have wondered about his bizarre handling of the case, and many have attributed it to Walker's belief that it is unjust for the law to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Nor is the neglected bias related to the fact that (as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay.

Of course, Walker's opinions about marriage and sexual preference could be related to his own homosexuality.

Now, I have no idea whether Walker is gay, and I don't care in the slightest. His ruling speaks for itself, and if the right wants to find flaws in the decision, conservatives can make their case -- without going after the motives and/or personal life of the jurist who wrote the ruling.

But consider the implications of this line of criticism. Should an African-American judge necessarily be accused of bias if she considers a case of racial discrimination? Should a woman judge consider recusing herself in a case involving sexual harassment?

For that matter, why would a straight judge necessarily be preferable to hear a case involving marriage equality?

If the right has a problem with Walker's reasoning or interpretation of the law, let's hear it. But this talk about his orientation is cheap and irrelevant.

Update: Pat Buchanan is pushing the same line of attack. Imagine that.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share

AN EVEN BLURRIER LINE.... For a long while, it was pretty easy to see the differences among conservatives. There were hysterical extremists like those found at the American Family Association, and there were more influential and cerebral conservatives like those found at the editorial board of National Review.

But the lines have obviously been blurred.

The American Family Association is generally the kind of outfit the left mocks, not fears. The group is best known for launching odd boycotts and claiming to fight the "War on Christmas." A few months ago, the AFA said a trainer at Sea World wouldn't have died if only the theme park had followed Biblical mandates.

With this background in mind, the American Family Association argued yesterday that it's so incensed by the proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan that it's calling on Americans to boycott companies -- architectural, electrical, plumbing, and construction -- that "do even a lick of work to build this hall of horrors." Companies that don't comply, the AFA said, should be blacklisted and deemed "un-American."

This is obviously pretty insane. But note that on the very same day, the editorial board of National Review came to the very same conclusion. The conservative magazine said:

...Americans should make their displeasure with this project felt economically and socially: No contractor, construction company, or building-trades union that accepts a dime of the Cordoba Initiative's money should be given a free pass -- nobody who sells them so much as a nail, or a hammer to drive it in with. This is an occasion for boycotts and vigorous protests -- and, above all, for bringing down a well-deserved shower of shame upon those involved with this project, and on those politicians who have meekly gone along with it. It is an indecent proposal and an intentional provocation.

Congratulations, National Review. You're now every bit as nutty as a ridiculous fringe group that went after Wal-Mart for selling "Brokeback Mountain" DVDs.

The editorial board should be very proud.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

A REMINDER ABOUT 'REAGANOMICS'.... The conservative Washington Times ran a column yesterday insisting that Reagan's economic policies succeeded where Obama's have not. Cato's Dan Mitchell, ostensibly an expert in tax policy, found the comparison compelling.

"Both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama entered office during periods of economic misery," Mitchell said. "But they adopted dramatically different solutions. Reagan reduced the burden of government and Obama increased the burden of government... As you can see, Reaganomics is much better than Obamanomics." Mitchell added that this is a "slam-dunk comparison."

This seems pretty silly, for more than a few reasons. Ezra Klein noted, for example, that it's misguided to compare the downturn of the early 1980s and the global financial crisis in recent years. "If you want to compare Reagan to someone, you should look at Clinton, who also entered office amidst a traditional recession. But Reagan doesn't look too good in that match-up," Ezra added.

Paul Krugman noted that the GOP argument itself is a reminder why he "can't maintain the pretense that we're having any kind of intelligent, or remotely honest, discussion" with conservatives.

reagantaxes.png

I agree with all of this, but wanted to add something. Krugman posted this chart several months ago, and it continues to seem relevant to the discussion. Reagan's first big tax cut was signed in August 1981. Over the next year or so, unemployment went from just over 7% to just under 11%. In September 1982, Reagan raised taxes, and unemployment fell soon after.

We're all aware, of course, of the correlation/causation dynamic, but as Krugman noted in January, "[U]nemployment, which had been stable until Reagan cut taxes, soared during the 15 months that followed the tax cut; it didn't start falling until Reagan backtracked and raised taxes."

John Boehner wasn't in Congress at the time, but as Reagan's post-tax-cut unemployment rate soared to nearly 11%, I wonder whether the Orange One would have been on television every day asking, "Where. Are. The. Jobs?"

The right is convinced that Obama's recovery efforts didn't work, and as proof, they point to the unemployment numbers a year and a half after the policy became law. But if that's the appropriate measure, wouldn't Republicans also have to believe that Reagan's 1981 tax-cut package also failed, since unemployment went even higher the year after it passed?

Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

THE GOP LINE ON STATE AID.... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that the House will return from its August recess next week, voting in emergency session on a state aid package. It's a great move -- the funding, which will formally pass the Senate today, includes $10 billion to save school teachers' jobs, and $16.1 billion in state Medicaid funding. It can't wait another five weeks.

It's safe to assume that the vast majority of House Republican, if not literally every member, will grudgingly work their way back to D.C., only to register their opposition to the measure. But what will be the rationale? House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) argued yesterday:

"The American people don't want more Washington 'stimulus' spending -- especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests. This stunning display of tone-deafness comes at the expense of American workers, who will be hit by another job-killing tax hike because Washington Democrats can't kick their addiction to more government 'stimulus' spending."

Hmm. Aid to struggling states will help prevent the layoffs of school teachers, firefighters, and police officers. For the House Republican leader, these folks are "special interests." But when he works with Wall Street executives to kill new financial industry safeguards, or meets with insurance companies to kill health care reform, or meets with polluters to kill energy/climate legislation, these aren't "special interests."

In this sense, the "special interests" label is a bit like the "judicial activism" line -- court rulings the GOP finds offensive constitute "activism," and public employees the GOP doesn't care about are "special interests."

For that matter, the bill is fully paid for through spending cuts and cutting a corporate tax loophole that helps make it easier to send jobs overseas. Boehner is supposed to like the former, and his defense of the latter is bizarre.

The floor debate next week will no doubt be endlessly entertaining.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE PARTY OF BUSH TO THE PARTY OF JEFFERSON DAVIS.... Looking at the forest instead of the trees, it's rather remarkable to see just how far the Republican Party is willing to go in 2010. Leading GOP officials, with considerable power and influence, have earnestly pushed for a debate on the partial repeal of the 14th Amendment -- and it doesn't occur to the political establishment to point and laugh.

NBC News' First Read noted yesterday morning, "Just askin, but do these Republicans want to be tied to wanting to change this historic, post-Civil War amendment, which made former slaves and their children full citizens in this country? At a time of 10% unemployment and two wars, do politicians really want to debate a Constitutional Amendment from the 19th century?"

As it turns out, yes.

Yesterday added to this truly bizarre push. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) doubled down, characterizing the 14th Amendment as an antiquated relic. Around the same time, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa joined the chorus of Republicans endorsing hearings on a possible repeal, issuing a statement suggesting "changes" to the Constitution may be "warranted." Also yesterday, a Fox & Friends host blithely referred to the 14th Amendment as the "anchor baby amendment."

As a procedural matter, this is going nowhere. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's panel on the Constitution, has dismissed the notion of hearings out of hand. For that matter, even if there were hearings, the notion of getting two-thirds of both chambers to approve such a move is patently ridiculous. Republicans know this, but they're using this to rile up right-wing activists in advance of the elections, exploiting fear, bigotry, and ignorance in the hopes they boost turnout by a percentage point or two.

But that doesn't take away from the astounding fact that these developments are even taking place at all. E.J. Dionne Jr. can hardly believe it.

Rather than shout, I'll just ask the question in a civil way: Dear Republicans, do you really want to endanger your party's greatest political legacy by turning the 14th Amendment to our Constitution into an excuse for election-year ugliness?

Honestly, I thought that our politics could not get worse....

Our politics has gotten worse, and it keeps getting even worse as Republicans push the boundaries of what's acceptable in the American mainstream.

Take a moment to consider what's become fairly common in GOP circles of late. A sitting Republican congressman and governor have openly speculated about secession. A Senate candidate in Nevada has raised the specter of armed insurrection against the United States government. A Senate candidate in Kentucky has spoken out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota believes states should be able to ignore federal laws they don't like. None of these developments have drawn even mild rebukes from the party establishment.

Indeed, the conversations driving the GOP discourse focus around a series of stories -- Cordoba House, Prop 8, New Black Panther Party, Shirley Sherrod -- that have one thing in common: they're intended to make white voters afraid of "the other," whether that be on the basis of religion, race, or sexual orientation.

And if Republican candidates excel in the midterms, the party will believe the American electorate rewarded the GOP for its divisiveness, bigotry, and demagoguery, making it more likely these tactics will be the centerpiece of future campaigns.

The RNC has a "Political Achievements" page on its website, and oddly enough, it touts "Republicans Passed the 14th Amendment" as one of the party's proudest accomplishments.

The party has come a long way in the last 142 years. That's not a compliment.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share

JUDGE WALKER, THINKING AHEAD.... Federal Judge Vaughn Walker not only struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, he did so with the case's future in mind. Most seem to agree that Perry v. Schwarzenegger will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, so yesterday's district court ruling seemed to cater to that eventual destination.

The NYT's John Schwartz noted that appellate judges in this case "could find themselves boxed in by the careful logic and structure" of Walker's ruling. Northwestern Law School's Andrew Koppelman told the Times, "[I]f the Supreme Court does not want to uphold same-sex marriage, its job has been made harder by this decision."

The reason, he said, is that while appeals courts often overturn lower-court judges on their findings of law -- such as the proper level of scrutiny to apply to Proposition 8 -- findings of fact are traditionally given greater deference.

"They are supposed to take as true facts found by the district court, unless they are clearly erroneous," he said. "This opinion shows why district courts matter, even though the Supreme Court has the last word."

And to that end, Judge Walker's 136-page opinion lays a rich factual record, with extensive quotation of expert testimony from the lengthy trial.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick fleshed this out in more detail, adding that the ruling seemed to be "written for a court of one" -- specifically, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, very likely to be the swing judge in this case -- the man "who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity."

Judge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count -- in his opinion today -- seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy.

Justice Kennedy? Hot sauce to go with those words?

The case has a long way to go, but I'm glad Judge Walker was thinking ahead.

Postscript: Let this also be a reminder that federal district court judges matter. For all the attention paid to the vacancies at the appellate level, Senate Republicans are blocking President Obama's district court nominees because they realize rulings like the one we saw yesterday can make a significant difference.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 4, 2010

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The "static kill" has left me feeling optimistic: "It wasn't quite the stake through the heart, because that stake has to be made of cement, not merely mud. And the stake might have to be driven in from below, not from the top. But on the 107th day of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the runaway Macondo well has been rendered 'static' and now looks very much like a harmless hole clogged with 13-pound-per-gallon gunk."

* The long-term effects may yet be awful, but administration scientists reported today that "most" of the oil that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico since April "has dissipated or been removed from the water."

* A homemade explosive reportedly went off near Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's motorcade today. He was unharmed.

* Republicans will not filibuster Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination.

* Senate Democrats released a video documenting the instances in which Republicans fought against economic recovery efforts. It's quite a list.

* Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) uses an op-ed to endorse a Democratic childhood nutrition bill. Good for him.

* Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) intended to attend a funeral for four U.S. servicemembers killed last week, but stayed in D.C. for some key votes. Instead, he delivered some touching remarks from the Senate floor.

* Speaking of worthwhile remarks from senators, I was impressed with Sen. Bob Menendez's (D-N.J.) remarks after he was asked by a reporter about the GOP drive to repeal part of the 14th Amendment.

* Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) makes a funny at Sharron Angle's expense.

* Did you catch the deeply satisfying Stephen Colbert interview with GOP hack Laura Ingraham?

* Another college will no longer require applicants to submit SAT scores for admission.

* Jon Chait on Cordoba House opponents: "This episode is a major statement about American pluralism, minority rights and America's ability to make the necessary divide between moderate and extremist Muslims. A lot of people are going to eventually feel ashamed about where they stood."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN CALIF. GAY MARRIAGE BAN.... In 2008, opponents of marriage equality pushed a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriages in California, following a state Supreme Court ruling that said consenting adults could legally marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. A narrow majority of Golden State voters, tragically, approved the measure.

A year ago, state courts upheld the outcome of the statewide vote. This afternoon, a federal court reached the opposite conclusion.

In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage, Reuters reported.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

Rachel Slajda has some excerpts from the ruling including this gem: "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The full ruling from Judge Walker, an appointee of President H.W. Bush, is online here.

Note, the case will now go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which tends to be pretty progressive. Many legal experts I've spoken to expect the Supreme Court to eventually hear the case.

In the meantime, the decision is heartening. The arc of history is long, but it continues to bend towards justice.

Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE TO INTERRUPT THEIR BREAK TO PASS STATE AID.... As encouraging as it was to see the Senate overcome a Republican filibuster this morning on FMAP and EduJobs, there's been a nagging problem: the House is already in recess.

Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) announced she's calling everyone back. In a Twitter message, Pelosi said:

I will be calling the House back into session early next week to save teachers' jobs and help seniors & children

Great move. At issue is a state aid package, including $10 billion to save school teachers' jobs, and $16.1 billion in state Medicaid funding. There's been a very real possibility that, by the time the House passed the Senate measure, thousands of teachers will have already been laid off. It's precisely why the Speaker is doing the right thing by announcing an emergency session.

Though some members are traveling abroad and may not be on hand for next week's vote, House passage is considered a near-certainty.

I'll also look forward to some heartening drama -- Democrats rushing back to D.C. for an emergency session, to save the jobs of thousands of school teachers? Shortly before an election? Aaron Sorkin couldn't write it any better.

Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

SILENCE ISN'T ALWAYS GOLDEN.... When it comes to the high-profile Republican activists who are fighting against a proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan, it'd be heartening if we saw GOP grown-ups doing what NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) did yesterday: stand up for American ideals, defend religious liberty, stop playing by bin Laden's rules, and denounce bigotry.

And while we wait for Republican maturity that will likely never come, Greg Sargent raises a good point: Dems can step up, too.

I asked Chuck Schumer's office for his position on the Islamic center this morning. All his spokesman would say is that he "not opposed" to the plan. Asked for Schumer's views of the opposition, and asked if he actively supports the right of the center's builders to put it two blocks from Ground Zero, Schumer's spokesman declined to elaborate and said Schumer was declining an interview. [...]

That's not all. As I noted here yesterday, Dem Rep. Anthony Weiner, who's been widely hailed as a hero on the left for his supposed willingness to engage the opposition, is also refusing to say word boo about his position on the Islamic center.

Weiner wants to be mayor of New York. Last I checked, that city is home to a few Muslims, all of whom would become his constituents. Yet he can't bring himself to stand up for their right to worship two blocks from Ground Zero. The guy he wants to replace, Michael Bloomberg, had the guts to do this very eloquently yesterday. Where's Weiner?

I initially thought there's no real point in Democrats calling out Gingrich, Palin, et al, for their odious bigotry, because it's predictable. "Dems think Newt Gingrich is wrong" isn't exactly a big story.

But Greg's right -- this doesn't have to be about Democrats denouncing GOP nonsense, it can be nothing more than Democrats denouncing fear and intolerance, while touting the principles that makes America great.

To my mind, there are different expectations for different officials. Every time the White House weighs in on a local matter, it seems to bite the West Wing in the ass, so if the president and his spokespersons want to take a pass on commenting, that's hardly outrageous. But in the case of Schumer and Weiner, this is a local story, of growing significance to their own constituents. Why not have the courage to take a stance similar to the one Bloomberg took yesterday?

Some Dems have done the right thing here. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who represents Manhattan, has defended the Cordoba House project and condemned the GOP bigotry. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D), who has nothing to do with this story directly, was asked about it today, and said the right thing: "The sooner we separate the peaceful teaching of Islam from the behavior of terrorists, the better for all of us."

At this point, I wouldn't say the Gingrich/Palin crowd is winning the debate -- on the contrary, I think they're humiliating themselves -- but the discussion would be more constructive if leading Democrats lent their voice to a defense of our principles. Their silence make the bigots' voices seem louder, while making the Dems appear cowardly.

Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

ZOMBIE NONSENSE STILL TOUGH TO KILL.... Sigh.

It's surely not what the leader of the free world wants for his birthday. But, for a stubborn group of Americans, conspiracy theories about President Obama's birthplace are the gifts that keep on giving. [...]

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more than a quarter of the public have doubts about Obama's citizenship, with 11 percent saying Obama was definitely not born in the United States and another 16 percent saying the president was probably not born in the country.

Broken down by party, 85% of Democrats believe the president was definitely or probably born in the U.S. Among independents, the number is 68%. For Republicans, only 57% believe reality, while 27% of rank-and-file GOP voters believe Obama was "probably" born elsewhere, and 14% of Republicans are convinced he was "definitely" not born here. In other words, a combined 41% of GOP voters are reasonably sure of something with no foundation in reality.

That's an awful lot of ignorance, generated entirely by a right-wing noise machine pushing a baseless, ridiculous conspiracy theory. As Rush Limbaugh told his minions yesterday, "They tell us August 4th is the birthday. We haven't seen any proof of that!"

Hilarious.

For what it's worth, the reason poll results like these don't force me into unreachable despair is that I'm not convinced those who are wrong necessarily understand the constitutional implications. For some of those who question the president's birthplace, it may not matter whether Obama is a natural-born citizen (reality) or a naturalized citizen (fiction). For all I know, some folks find the whole bogus idea charming: "Isn't America great? Someone can be born in another country, work hard, and eventually become president of the United States."

Still, the pervasive quality of the ignorance here is remarkable. Given how obvious reality is, and how many times this nonsense has been debunked, the "birthers" in Congress and the media have to be pretty pleased with themselves.

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

GOP WANTS MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING BEFORE NEW START RATIFICATION.... The Obama administration's new arms-control treaty with Russia has to be ratified. Of course, it takes 67 votes to approve a treaty in the Senate, which means finding eight Republicans mature enough to do the right thing.

To be sure, the treaty enjoys enthusiastic bipartisan support -- mostly, with the exception of Sen. Dick Lugar, from Republican elder statesmen who are no longer in government. Officials like Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Colin Powell, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) have all urged the Senate to ratify New START.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) recently noted that if Senate Republicans block ratification of the 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?"

With that in mind, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) has worked hard to advance New START, with bipartisan support, from his committee before the summer recess. Yesterday, he was forced to pull back -- Republicans refused to get on board, despite the urging of GOP foreign policy experts.

Many U.S. allies had assumed New START would easily be ratified this year. The treaty commits the United States and Russia to modest cuts in their long-range, ready-to-use weapons and extends a 15-year system allowing each side to check the other's nuclear facilities. It is the cornerstone of the Obama administration's attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow.

The treaty has been endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces. French Ambassador Pierre Vimont said recently that after diplomats cabled home that the treaty could run into problems, "People ask us, 'Have you been drinking?' "

The world probably doesn't appreciate just how crazy congressional Republicans have become. Hell, I suspect most Americans don't appreciate it, either.

In this instance, the main GOP complaint is that the Obama administration has called for spending $80 billion over the next decade on modernizing nuclear weapons facilities, and $100 billion on strategic bombers and long-range missiles that carry nuclear warheads.

Republicans are arguing that this isn't enough, which is why they won't let the treaty advance from committee.

In other words, the most important treaty this Congress will consider is stuck because Republicans want to increase spending.

Kerry intends to move the treaty after the recess, and the leadership wants it on the floor before the Congress adjourns. We'll see.

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

STOP THOSE BIKE PATHS BEFORE THEY STRIKE AGAIN.... The list of right-wing boogeymen can get pretty long, but a long-time conservative favorite hasn't generated nearly as much attention as it used to.

For years, especially in the '90s, the right desperately hated the United Nations. It was never altogether clear why -- "one-world government" hysteria seemed to be part of it -- but Republicans used to spend a fair amount of time insisting that Clinton/Gore was turning over national sovereignty to U.N. bureaucrats. Or something.

In any case, U.N. fear-mongering faded in recent years, but it hasn't disappeared entirely. Reader P.O. flagged this remarkable item for me:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."

"This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed," Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor's efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes "that's exactly the attitude they want you to have."

I'd be lying if I said I didn't literally laugh out loud at this. "That's what they want you to think" is something of a comical cliche, used by those making fun of paranoid conspiracy theorists.

In this case, a leading Republican gubernatorial candidate -- and Tea Party favorite -- was completely serious. Maes went on to tell the Denver Post that efforts to promote bicycling and related programs seem like "warm, fuzzy ideas," but they're really "very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program." He added, "This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms."

Honestly, is there something in the water this year? Is the RNC handing out crazy pills to all of its candidates?

In this case, Maes is concerned about Denver participating in "the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international association that promotes sustainable development and has attracted the membership of more than 1,200 communities, 600 of which are in the United States."

There's nothing especially nefarious about sustainable development -- it's actually a smart idea -- and Denver joined the effort in 1992, more than a decade before Hickenlooper became mayor.

Unless, that's all part of Hickenlooper's radical plan, and he just wants us to think he wasn't involved in 1992. In reality, he was plotting even then, teaming up with the Illuminati, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot, working together in some giant pro-bicycle U.N. scheme. All of this is, after all, "bigger than it looks like on the surface."

Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

Bookmark and Share

YES, SHE CAN GET EVEN CRAZIER.... Depending on one's faith tradition, the wording of the First Commandment can vary a bit, but most folks believe it's the Abrahamic God telling his followers, "I am the Lord your God," and "thou shalt have no other gods besides Me." It's a pretty straightforward commandment, warning against worship of false gods and idolatry.

Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, has her own "unique" take on the First Commandment, which may be the single craziest thing she's ever said. Jon Ralston reports on recent comments the lunatic candidate made on a Christian radio talk-show.

"And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."

This mindset will further reinforce to some that religion infuses everything Angle believes but also might explain her hostility to government programs, believing essentially they are produced by a false God.

Referencing her Senate campaign, Angle added, "I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith. And we need people to really stand for faith and trust, not hope and change."

Greg Sargent added, "Is it a stretch to conclude that Angle genuinely views the Nevada Senate race as a Holy War?"

It's not a stretch at all. Angle's argument, such as it is, constitutes pure madness.

Let's say we, the people of the United States, decide to form a more perfect union. We conclude that it's a good idea to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. In turn, we create laws and government institutions to establish a government, and craft a Constitution with governmental powers and limits (one of which, incidentally, guarantees religious liberty, allowing us all to worship as we please, or not to worship at all.)

To hear Sharron Angle put it, this is all a terrible mistake. Why turn to our democratically elected government and our chosen political representatives to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty when we should be turning to the deity Holy Warrior Angle believes in?

The Las Vegas Sun recently reported that Angle, who said she's running because God told her to, embraces a radical church-state philosophy that "parallels that of a religious political movement -- Christian Reconstructionism -- seeking to return American civil society to biblical law."

If you're unfamiliar with Christian Reconstructionism, it's quite literally analogous to the Taliban and radical proponents of Sharia law -- just as they want to replace secular law with laws based on their interpretation of the Quran, Reconstructionists want to replace secular law in the U.S. with their interpretation of the Christian Bible. In this vision, a radical take on Scripture would take the place of our Constitution.

Reconstructionists represent some of the most extreme elements of the American fringe -- and they seem to have an ally running for the United States Senate in 2010.

Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share

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.

* It was primary day yesterday in Michigan, Missouri, and Kansas. Several gubernatorial and Senate contests were decided, and one House incumbent -- Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan -- lost in a Democratic primary.

* In Nevada, the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R) by four points among likely voters, 48% to 44%. Among registered voters, Reid's lead is much larger, 52% to 36%.

* A new Quinnipiac poll in Connecticut's Senate race shows the gap narrowing a bit. State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) now leads wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R) by 10, 50% to 40%.

* In Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet hasn't been bashful in asking President Obama for help in his Democratic primary fight against Andrew Romanoff, and the president in turn, is going all out to give Bennet a boost.

* Speaking of Colorado, if you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, the pollster shows the state's gubernatorial race following a predictable pattern. With former Rep. Tom Tancredo entering the contest as a third-party candidate, the right is split, giving Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) a boost. At this point, Hickenlooper leads according to the poll with 43% support, followed by former Rep. Scott McInnis (R) with 25%, and Tancredo with 24%.

* In the state of Washington, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) by just three, 49% to 46%.

* In Florida, Rasmussen finds state CFO Alex Sink (D) looking competitive in the gubernatorial race, leading state Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) by four, but trailing disgraced former health care executive Rick Scott (R) by the same margin.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

Bookmark and Share

SENATE PASSES KEY LEGISLATION ON STATE AID, TEACHERS' JOBS.... This morning was a key test -- of the Senate's ability to address a public need, of policymakers' commitment to the American economy, of Republican moderates' willingness to take "yes" for an answer.

In a pleasant surprise, they passed the test.

At issue was a state aid package, including $10 billion to save school teachers' jobs, and $16.1 billion in state Medicaid funding (FMAP). The measure was financed through a combination of cuts -- including cuts to food stamps in future years -- and closing foreign tax credit loopholes. For Republicans who claim to want to improve the economy, but not at the expense of the deficit, there were no excuses -- Dems offered a modest, sensible bill, which would save jobs, help struggling states, all without adding to the deficit.

Indeed, Senate Democrats practically wrote the bill to the specifications of Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Fortunately, they acted in good faith -- after getting the provisions they wanted, at the cost they wanted, Snowe and Collins voted with Democrats. The vote this morning was 61 to 38. Every other Republican in the chamber voted to kill the legislation -- there's money for the wars and tax cuts, they said, but not for teachers and health care.

This morning was not, by the way, a vote on final passage, but rather, to end a Republican filibuster (which, for the first time in American history, is applied to literally every bill of consequence). The legislation itself will be approved by majority rule by tomorrow night, at the latest.

The bill now heads to the House, which won't return from its August recess for several weeks. There have been some unconfirmed rumors that the House may return in emergency session to approve the FMAP/EduJobs bill before the recess formally ends, but that remains to be seen.

Regardless, this morning offers something of a relief. As many as 140,000 school teachers' jobs were on the line, and much-needed Medicaid funding needed to pass. For those who were beginning to think nothing could ever pass the Senate again, regardless of merit, today offers a glimmer of hope.

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

SOMETHING BUSH DID RIGHT -- AND CAN DO RIGHT AGAIN.... Last week, Paul Waldman, whose regard for George W. Bush is identical to mine, raised a good point about one of the admirable qualities of the failed former president.

...Bush actually went out of his way to repeat that America was not at war with Islam as a whole, only with certain radical elements engaged in terrorism. It seemed like the most obvious thing in the world -- first, because it's plainly true, and secondly, because the idea that America is as war with Islam is exactly what Al Qaeda wants people to believe. It's central to their recruiting efforts. [...]

[T]oday, the question of whether an Islamic cultural center will be built in lower Manhattan has brought out a whole bunch of ugliness from the right.... Who would have thought Bush would start looking moderate and reasonable?

For all of Bush's many, many faults, he was generally quite responsible when it came to these issues. Even when his base embraced the ugliest bigotry and demagoguery, the former president resisted such talk, took the high ground, and showed genuine respect for diversity and religious freedom. Bush could have very easily slipped into the same discriminatory swamp, and to his credit, he chose not to.

But as we've seen in recent weeks, Bush's political allies -- Gingrich, Palin, Cheney, Giuliani, et al -- aren't following his example, especially as it involves a proposed Muslim community center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Yesterday, noting the Republican hysteria over the Cordoba House, Kevin Drum took a similar to line to Waldman: "For once, I really do miss George Bush. The damage he did to the American cause in the Muslim world is incalculable, but at least he never countenanced this kind of lunatic bigotry. Are there any Republican leaders left today who can say the same? Anyone willing to just quietly and frankly defend traditional American notions of religious freedom and traditional American notions of tolerance and decency?"

So far, no. There are no Republican grown-ups willing to step up and say, "Enough. This is wrong. We're better than this."

Of course, Bush took a responsible approach in office, and as Matt Yglesias noted this morning, he could do the same again.

[H]ere's the thing: George W Bush isn't dead. He's alive and well. If he wanted to stand alongside Mayor Bloomberg and do a press conference, I'm sure people would pay attention. Perhaps he's observing a kind of ex-presidential courtesy and staying out of things. But Dick Cheney hasn't shied away from inserting himself into political controversies. He could stand up for old fashioned Bush-Cheney values of start lots of wars but steer clear of explicit anti-Muslim bigotry. But he doesn't want to. Nor does his daughter Liz. Karl Rove was the architect of the Bush administration's messaging and I see him on Fox News all the time. He, too, could stand up for the approach to conservatism we remember from the Bush era. But he doesn't want to either.

Now why is that? I couldn't quite say. But at a minimum it's indicative that they don't have a very strong commitment to either the principle of non-discrimination or the strategic conceit that the conservative vision of a "war on terror" is something other than a civilizational struggle with Muslims.

I'll cut Dick Cheney some slack -- the guy is still in the hospital with heart problems -- but Matt's larger point is a good one. It would take some political character for Bush and his team to step up now and denounce a GOP line they deliberately avoided while in office. Why not show some courage and do the right thing now?

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

DOG BITES MAN -- MISSOURI REPUBLICANS DON'T LIKE HEALTH CARE REFORM.... As with the procedural court decision in Virginia this week, conservatives will probably be inclined to see yesterday's vote on Proposition C in Missouri as an important development. But as with Virginia, it's really not.

Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.

The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of President Obama's health care law -- namely, that most people be required to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law. [...]

The referendum, known as Proposition C, was seen as a first look at efforts by conservatives to gather and rally their forces over the issue. In the end, though, the referendum seemed not to capture the general population's attention. Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial role in the vote's fate.

If this was about "sending a signal," then we've learned a valuable lesson -- Republican primary voters in a "red" state are inclined to believe right-wing rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act. Wait, did I say "valuable" lesson? I meant, "painfully obvious."

Yesterday was a primary day in Missouri. There were no major Democratic contests, and reform proponents in organized labor and the health care community made almost no effort to rally voters in opposition to the ballot measure. As a result, roughly two-thirds of those participating were Republican primary voters -- making the outcome quite predictable.

As for the practical implications of this, state voters can't invalidate a federal law. For that matter, courts will likely have weighed in on the subject of the individual mandate -- which was, by the way, a Republican idea -- before it takes effect in 2014.

All told, this was a symbolic "victory" that everyone saw coming, and which will have no meaningful effect on the policy itself.

Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

TOUGH FOLKS TO PLEASE.... When I see Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), I see a conservative Republican senator who talks a bit about constructive policymaking, but who invariably fails to follow through.

When his right-wing constituents see Graham, they see a senator willing to betray their extremist ideals.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who often finds himself out of step with the most conservative elements of his party, was censured by yet another GOP county party committee Monday night.

In recent months, Graham has been censured by GOP party committees in Lexington and Charleston counties. On Monday, the Greenville GOP Executive Committee passed a censure resolution by a vote of 61-2.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Greenville County Republican Party hereby issues this formal rebuke of Senator Graham for his cooperation and support of President Obama and the Democratic Party's liberal agenda for the United States," the resolution reads.
The resolution says Graham will no longer be invited to participate in meetings or other events sponsored by the Greenville County Republican Party, and alleges Graham has "abandoned the Republican platform."

How odd. Graham's voting record is very conservative, and he's backed every Republican filibuster -- good lord, there's been a lot of them -- on every Democratic proposal.

Why on earth would they censure him? The resolution points to (1) Graham's vote on the financial industry bailout; (2) his stance on immigration reform; and (3) his confirmation vote on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But (1) Graham's position on TARP was the same position taken by the Republican White House, the Republican House leadership, the Republican Senate leadership, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. Have they all "abandoned the Republican platform"?

On immigration, Graham was willing to talk about a compromise, but he abandoned the talks and killed the legislation. Shouldn't the GOP base be pleased?

And, sure, he voted for Sotomayor, but so did seven other Republicans. It was something of a no-brainer.

I feel ridiculous defending Graham from other Republicans, but the larger significance of this is important: the GOP base wants to create an environment in which Republican lawmakers should be afraid to even talk to Democrats. That was the lesson of Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) defeat in Utah, and the motivation for resolutions like this one in South Carolina. Rank-and-file Republicans want leaders who aren't interested in discussions, oppose compromise, and seek to do little more than destroy any hopes at solving problems.

It's really not healthy.

Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

WHY WOULD STEELE WANT FACE TIME WITH FOREIGN DIPLOMATS?.... Even when he's screwing up, RNC Chairman Michael Steele's motivations are usually pretty clear. In a story like this one, though, I have no idea what he's thinking.

The Republican National Committee is trying to set up meetings between Chairman Michael Steele and foreign ambassadors to the United States, according to an email obtained by POLITICO -- an effort that has puzzled diplomats as well as fellow Republicans.

An RNC intern sent a message late last month to at least one ambassador on behalf of Neil Alpert, a senior finance aide, with little explanation.

"As you know, the November election is just 103 days away and the Chairman would like to extend to you an invitation to sit down either at the RNC or at your embassy to discuss the upcoming 2010 midterm elections," wrote Christopher Kelleher, a finance department intern. "With literally hundreds of congressional seats up for grabs in just under four months, Chairman Steel [sic] would love to have the opportunity to discuss the Party's outlook with you."

It's not at all common for party chiefs to set up private discussions with foreign diplomats to discuss U.S. elections, and the RNC declined to explain the purpose of the proposed meetings.

Referring to foreign ambassadors, former RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson told Politico, "They can't give any money and they can't vote. I don't know why you'd take time to do it."

Since it's illegal for foreign nationals to contribute to American candidates or political parties, and it's largely unheard of for international diplomats to offer candidate endorsements, the whole thing is a bit of mystery.

A longtime party operative added. "Michael Steele is focused on one outcome -- that's his own."

That's almost certainly true, but it still doesn't fully explain the RNC chairman's motivations. Is he trying to line up foreign work after he loses his job next year? Does he hope to bad-mouth President Obama to foreign diplomats to sabotage U.S. foreign policy?

Even for Steele, this is just bizarre.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

EVEN A WATERED-DOWN ENERGY BILL CAN'T MOVE.... A couple of weeks ago, Senate Democratic leaders delivered the bad news -- a meaningful energy/climate package couldn't overcome Republican obstructionism. Left with no choice, the majority would pursue a weaker, watered down bill, including "green" jobs, new oil company regulations, and Home Star (the program formerly known as Cash for Caulkers).

Those who take policy seriously were deeply disappointed, but the Senate has to pass something, no matter how narrow, and if this is the only bill that can be approved in our broken legislative system, so be it.

Except, the votes for the bill that's already been stripped of its most important elements, just to ensure its passage, still can't pass.

Despite months of public outrage over the massive BP oil spill, frustrated Democratic Senate leaders abandoned their effort Tuesday to pass spill-related legislation before leaving for their summer recess later this week.

"That kind of bill, folks, ought to pass 100 to nothing, but it's not," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a leader on energy legislation.

He and other Democrats had sought to raise liability limits on oil companies drilling in U.S. waters and provide incentives for consumers to make their homes and vehicles more energy efficient.

The bill had seemed like a popular response to what's generally regarded as the year's biggest single news event, but now won't be considered before the Senate returns in mid-September at the earliest.

"It's clear that Republicans remain determined to stand in the way of everything," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters.

What's the problem? The GOP has a few complaints, but the biggest is over the liability cap. Existing law places a $75 million cap on oil companies responsible for offshore spills. Most Democrats want to lift the cap, or at least raise it far above the status quo. Republicans, joined by two Democrats friendly with the oil industry -- Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Alaska's Mark Begich -- balked.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who's championed the liability cap, tried to work out a compromise. It didn't come together.

So, now that the easy-to-pass version is no longer easy to pass, what happens? Dems' goal was to move the bill to the floor this week, before the recess. Yesterday's announcement wasn't necessarily the death of an energy bill, so much as the death of a quick energy bill. There was growing talk yesterday that the issue may not even come to the floor until a post-election lame-duck session.

There are some hopes that environmentalists can use the month-long break to make the case to unsure senators, perhaps generating some new support. Stay tuned.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 3, 2010

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Fingers crossed in the Gulf: "BP began pumping mud into the blown-out Macondo well Tuesday afternoon in a much-anticipated 'static kill' procedure that could choke the well once and for all."

* In the face of pointless Republican obstructionism, the energy bill is on hold until at least September.

* In the face of pointless Republican obstructionism, the New START treaty is on hold until at least September.

* President Obama signs the Fair Sentencing Act into law.

* Beautiful speech from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) in support of a Muslim community center in Manhattan.

* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has decided to lift his hold on James Clapper's nomination to serve as director of national intelligence.

* After several Republican senators expressed a willingness to repeal part of the 14th Amendment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) noted, "They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles."

* Once more with The Cooch: "Virginia joined the national debate over immigration Monday when Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II issued a legal opinion that authorizes law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police officers for any reason."

* The "vicious infighting" at the Republican National Committee isn't close to being done.

* Some much needed attention for the "99ers," who've "exhausted the maximum 99 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits that they can claim."

* House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) hates wasteful government spending -- unless it benefits his district.

* Likewise, Blue Dogs don't care for public spending, unless it might help them keep their jobs.

* Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) apparently isn't leaving the Democratic Party.

* A creative approach in which students build their own scholarship.

* I don't know what's gotten into Tom Shales.

* Glad to see ABC's "This Week" will continue to partner with PolitiFact.com.

* And "Fox & Friends" co-host Steve Doocy seems confused about what a "debate" is.

* Final debate is underway on Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) encouraged Kagan backers to "point out any errors" in his remarks as "so that we can, above all, get the facts straight." What a good idea.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE MCCAIN NEEDS A NEW HOBBY.... For quite a while, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has done his best to "prove" that the Recovery Act that prevented a depression was chock full o' waste and abuse. His crusade would be more effective if he knew what he was talking about.

Last year, for example, he used Twitter to highlight what he considered "the top 10 pork barrel projects" in the stimulus, which McCain described as his idea of "a lot of fun." Some cursory research found that most of McCain's examples weren't wasteful at all.

In one classic example, McCain blasted "$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi," asking, "How does one manage a beaver?" Hilarious. In Grown-Up land, $650,000 in stimulus funds hired workers to disrupt beaver dams, which in turn prevented significant flood damage to farms, timber lands, roadways, and other infrastructure in the area. The Arizonan neglected to do his homework, and ended up blasting a worthwhile project for no reason.

McCain's still at it, hosting another press conference this morning to whine some more about alleged "waste" in the recovery efforts, and tout a "report" that he had some aides put together pointing to 100 examples of funds that shouldn't have been spent. Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden's chief economist, found McCain's work lacking.

Now, we're always glad to take a second look at projects when concerns are raised. In fact, there's never been a stimulus program of this magnitude with anywhere near the amount of oversight that's been brought to bear on the Recovery Act. And when we find a problem, we fix it. We've shut down hundreds of projects that weren't delivering the goods.

But the inaccuracy of McCain/Coburn in this regard renders this report just as unreliable as the last two. We followed up the projects in those reports, and found half of their claims to be flat-out false or misleading. Many of the others criticized worthwhile, job-creating projects. [...]

In the current report, our review so far finds that five of the 100 projects are not even Recovery Act projects. And others are just blatantly wrong on the facts.

One of the programs McCain considered the most offensive -- #9 out of 100 -- was a power plant in Kern County, California, at a cost of $308 million. The program is still on track to create 1,500 construction jobs, and 500 long-term jobs in alternative energy at the plant after its completion. It's even been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce. But McCain apparently considers it a terrific example to prove his point because the plant isn't finished yet.

What McCain may not realize is that he's actually helping prove his opponents' point. If the stimulus was so wasteful, he'd be able to come up with actual examples to bolster his argument, and not resort to making stuff up.

It's possible the Republican senator is feeling pretty foolish about how wrong he was, so throwing tantrums is his way of coping with the embarrassment. That's fine, I suppose, but the result still leaves McCain looking like a petty, partisan hack.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

PENCE WAS BLIND, NOW SEES?.... At a DNC event in Atlanta yesterday, President Obama enjoyed mocking Republicans for their lack of ideas, and their ongoing fealty to the Bush/Cheney agenda that already failed. "They have not come up with a single, solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the American people," the president said. "They don't have a single idea that's different from George Bush's ideas -- not one. Instead, they're betting on amnesia."

On MSNBC this morning, Joe Scarborough asked House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to tell viewers the ways in the current GOP offers an agenda that is "different from the vision that George W. Bush" offered. Here's Pence's reply in its entirety:

"Well, uh, look, Joe, you've known me for a lot of years, and uh, I, I will always hold the view that history will record that the American people did away with a tax-and-spend government, and then under the big-government-Republicanism of the Bush years, we were a tax-cut-and-spend government, by the time Bush [left] office.

"The vision for Republicans going forward is to produce pro-growth tax policies that will get this economy moving again. But to really practice what we preach about fiscal discipline and entitlement reform. I mean, the truth is, we grew government, we grew deficits under the Bush administration. You know I fought against those things vigorously, Joe, as you did on the airwaves.

"It's gotta be different, and we can have pro-growth tax relief going forward but we've got to get back to basic spending discipline and the principles of limited government."

Scarborough seemed impressed. He shouldn't have been.

In effect, Pence's pitch is straightforward: Republicans in this decade will be exactly like Bush/Cheney, except this time, they'll cut spending. For the right that's prepared to throw Bush under the bus, I suppose this sounds vaguely compelling. (Two years ago, a leading McCain campaign surrogate was asked on CNN to name one area where McCain would be different from Bush. He couldn't point to anything.)

But for those who take substance seriously, there are two pertinent questions. The first is, cut what, exactly? It's the shallowest talking point in the GOP arsenal -- vote for us and we'll cut spending. But until Pence and his cohorts are prepared to explain to the public what will get cut, how much, and at what cost, it's an argument with all the sophistication of a bumper sticker.

The second is, was Mike Pence sleeping through the Bush/Cheney years? Pence took office after the 2002 midterms, and proceeded to vote with the Bush/Cheney agenda the vast majority of the time. I don't recall him complaining about his own party pursuing a misguided tax-cut-and-spend approach to government.

It seems awfully convenient now, in 2010, for Pence to complain about "the big-government-Republicanism of the Bush years," when it was Pence who was voting for the Bush agenda at the time.

Ben Armbruster added that "the GOP agenda out of the Republican Study Committee -- of which Pence is a member -- is a mirror image of the Bush years." Imagine that.

Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

THE 'HEARINGS' COPOUT.... With so many leading Republican senators calling for a partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, it stands to reason that other GOP members will start facing questions about whether they agree. Given the importance of Arizona in the debate, and the fact the fact that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is helping lead the charge, it was only a matter of time before Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was asked to weigh in.

McCain co-hosted an event on the Hill this morning, giving the senator a platform to complain about the Recovery Act again. One of the questions from reporters, however, was whether McCain agreed with his Republican colleagues' concerns about the 14th Amendment. He dodged the question and ended the press conference.

Some reporters, including Brian Beutler, followed him, pressing him to state a position. "Do you support the Minority Leader's push for hearings into the repeal of birthright citizenship?" Brian asked.

"Sure, why not?" McCain said briefly.

"Do you support the idea itself?"

"I support the idea of having hearings," McCain said.

"Do you have a problem with the 14th amendment?" another reporter asked.

"You're changing the Constitution of the United States," McCain said. "I support the concept of holding hearings."

"I support the concept of holding hearings," McCain repeated, turning to the rail car conductor. "Let's go!" he snapped. "I don't have anything to add to that."

Don't you just love the "straight talk"?

Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) office is trying to clarify his remarks yesterday, insisting that he only endorsed a hearing to consider repealing portions of the 14th Amendment, not the repeal itself.

Greg Sargent noted, "In fairness to McConnell, calling for hearings into something really doesn't constitute taking a stand on it. There's a time-honored tradition in Congress where people support hearings into something in order to avoid taking a position."

That's true. Endorsing a hearing is a bit of a copout -- a way for a senator to buy some time, neither endorsing nor rejecting a given idea -- which allows a lawmaker to remain non-committal.

But in a case like this, the evasion only goes so far. If a liberal senator argued that the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted, had become dangerous to the public, and was in need of a partial repeal, McCain and McConnell wouldn't just "support the concept of holding hearings," they'd categorically reject it. They wouldn't need a hearing to know whether they find the idea worthwhile.

By endorsing a hearing of partial repeal of the 14th, then, McCain and McConnell are implicitly arguing that the idea, explicitly endorsed by some of their GOP colleagues, has at least some merit -- otherwise they'd dismiss the idea out of hand.

Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

IF ONLY THE RIGHT WOULD LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE, CONT'D.... We talked a few weeks ago about the right's approach to the U.S. Constitution, specifically, its desire to fiddle with it, adding more amendments while scrapping some old ones. As the GOP's interest in giving the 14th amendment a touch-up intensifies, let's take stock of where we are.

By my count, Republican leaders, including George W. Bush, endorsed six different new amendments to the Constitution over the last decade: (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. Jon Chait runs a similar list today, and notes a few I missed, including amendments to require legislative supermajorities to raise taxes, a "parental rights" amendment, a term-limits amendment, and in one instance, an amendment to give Washington, D.C., a single voting representative.

Taken together, that's 10 constitutional amendments proposed, endorsed, and/or introduced by leading Republicans over the last decade.

I'd call this many things, but "constitutional conservatism" -- a phrase repeated ad nauseum by Bachmann and the Tea Party crowd -- it isn't.

On top of the new amendments the right has requested, there's also the existing amendments the right wants to "fix." That means scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, and "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment.

It's as if the right has begun to look at the entire Constitution as little more than a rough draft, in desperate need of deft conservative editing. (What could possibly go wrong?)

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.

Of course, 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. In recent weeks, both Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for the partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, for crying out loud.

Given the alleged reverence for the Constitution in far-right circles, the irony is rich.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, FOOT-SHOOTING BIGOTRY.... I don't often agree with Jeffrey Goldberg, but his observation this morning on the proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan is both insightful and important. (via John Cole)

This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of this mosque project are giving him what he wants.

The anti-Muslim bigotry has been painful and offensive, but the counterproductinve idiocy of conservative leaders railing against the Cordoba House has often gone overlooked.

Feisal Abdul Rauf isn't some dangerous extremist for Republicans and Tea Partiers to fear; he's a longtime local imam, active in the Manhattan community, and committed to fighting radicalism. Indeed, he considers it a personal mission. The proposed building is intended to be a monument to tolerance and respect.

For folks like Gingrich, Cheney, Giuliani, et al, Feisal Abdul Rauf is exactly the kind of American ally who should be embraced. Instead, the right is going to genuinely ridiculous lengths to isolate, offend, and ostracize him, signaling their belief that all Muslim Americans should be treated as second-class citizens.

If Osama bin Laden were to write a script for what he'd like to see happen here, it'd be identical to the one Gingrich & Co. are following. This isn't intended to question their patriotism, but rather, their sanity.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

RAND PAUL FACES HEAT OVER OPPOSITION TO MINER SAFETY.... Kentucky's Rand Paul (R), the extremist Senate candidate, explained recently that he rejects the notion that the government should establish safety regulations to protect mine workers. This week, he's starting take some heat for it.

As Paul explained, he doesn't understand mine safety rules, "so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules." He added that, by honoring the free market above all, "no one will apply for those jobs" if a mine doesn't do a good job protecting worker safety.

In Kentucky's mining areas, Paul's remarks didn't go over especially well.

Members of the United Mine Workers from Kentucky have scheduled a news conference via phone Tuesday to take Paul to task for the remarks.

Tony Oppegard, a Lexington attorney who is a mine-safety advocate, called Paul's statement "idiotic."

He said it shows a lack of understanding of Eastern Kentucky, the region's economy and of the history of underground coal mining in the region, where for generations coal operators strongly opposed efforts by workers to form unions. In Harlan County, deadly battles over union organizing helped earned the county the nickname "Bloody Harlan."

Working conditions in underground mines are dangerous enough with federal and state rules, Oppegard said. If the industry were unregulated by government, "there would be a bloodbath," he said.

Paul is misinformed when he says no one would take jobs in mines that weren't safe, Oppegard said. Miners would take jobs even in unsafe mines because they need work, he said.

"There's no other job opportunities," Oppegard said.

This touches on what I like most about this story. Rand Paul has a nice little worldview, shaped by a bizarre, inflexible libertarianism. And in this little world Paul has created in his mind, everything should work as he envisions -- the free market can and should dictate safety regulations at coal mines. If employers don't look out for their workers, those employers won't have applicants for job openings, which means less business, less profit, etc.

And while Rand Paul's nice little vision is just delightful in an Ayn Rand novel, it's contradicted by everything we know and have seen about reality. Indeed, how does the Republican Senate hopeful explain the nightmarish conditions miners faced before federal safety regulations? Shouldn't the free market have prevented such a disastrous set of circumstances and prevented the dangerous exploitation of desperate workers?

It's not uncommon for conservatives to suggest that "liberal elites" don't understand the "real world" because their political ideals are rooted in an "ivory tower." This, of course, is backwards -- it's the far-right worldview that crumbles when subjected to real-world conditions.

Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* It's primary day in Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri. There are plenty of interesting races, including gubernatorial and congressional contests, to keep an eye on.

* Republicans have regained their lead in Gallup's generic ballot, but as I tried to emphasize two weeks ago when Dems were ahead, the wild, erratic shifts in the poll's results cast doubts on its reliability.

* The DNC probably won't have to worry about it until 2016, but superdelegates will continue to have some influence over the presidential nominating process.

* In North Carolina, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R) leading Elaine Marshall by just two points, 39% to 37%.

* In the state of Washington, Sen. Patty Murray (D) is running a new ad, targeting Dino Rossi's (R) Wall Street ties and opposition to new safeguards against financial industry abuses.

* Tom Emmer, the presumptive Republican gubernatorial nominee in Minnesota, is struggling to win over voters with his right-wing worldview. In the latest Star Tribune poll, Emmer trails all of the Democratic candidates in hypothetical match-ups, by margins ranging from 5 to 10 points.

* Speaking of extremists, Republican Ron Johnson, a Senate candidate in Wisconsin, personally paid for "The Bell Curve" author Charles Murray to speak to a local education council this year, despite questions about Murray's alleged racism.

* If you're inclined to take Rasmussen polls seriously, Nikki Haley (R) has a fairly big lead in South Carolina's gubernatorial race, leading state Sen. Vincent Sheheen (D), 49% to 35%.

* And in Florida, one of Rep. Alan Grayson's (D) Republican opponents argued that the fiery Democratic lawmaker shouldn't have missed the recent vote on war funding. Kurt Kelly (R) told Fox, "He put our soldiers, our men and women in the military, in harm's way and, in fact, maybe he wants them to die."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

NYC COMMISSION IGNORES BIGOTED HYSTERIA.... Right-wing critics of a proposed Muslim community center in Manhattan have struggled to explain why anyone should take their hysteria seriously. It makes it easier to ignore their nonsense.

After a protracted battle that set off a national debate over freedom of religion, a Muslim center and mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero surmounted a final hurdle on Tuesday.

The city's Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9 to 0 against granting historic protection to the building at 45-47 Park Place in Lower Manhattan, where the $100 million center would be built.

That decision clears the way for the construction of Park51, a tower of as many as 15 stories that will house a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, and a pool. Its leaders say it will be modeled on the Y.M.C.A. and Jewish Community Center in Manhattan.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) will endorse the project today.

The developer of the project, SoHo Properties chief executive Sharif El-Gamal, noted this morning, "We are Americans -- Muslim Americans. We are businessmen, businesswomen, lawyers, doctors, restaurant workers, cabdrivers, and professionals of every walk of life, represented by the demographic and tapestry of Manhattan."

That this has even become a story is something of a national embarrassment. In the 21st century, conservative activists have shown no qualms about arguing, in public, that religious liberty shouldn't apply fully to those they don't like. That officials in New York are choosing a more sensible, more respectful, more American approach is encouraging.

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (55)

Bookmark and Share

SHARRON ANGLE SAID WHAT?.... Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, has a habit of saying some pretty remarkable things, including vague advocacy of the violent overthrow of the United States government.

In recent weeks, under strict orders, Angle has tried to improve her public image and make fewer crazy remarks, in part by avoiding the media. Confronted by reporters anxious to press the Senate hopeful on her own comments, Angle has even taken to literally fleeing from journalists.

And yet, the year's nuttiest statewide candidate continues to surprise. Over the weekend, Angle sat down with Fox News' Carl Cameron, who noted her tendency to avoid reporters' scrutiny. Angle replied, "We needed to have the press be our friend."

When Cameron said that "sounds lame," the right-wing candidate replied, "Well, no, no, we wanted [journalists] to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported. And when I get on a show and I say send me money to SharronAngle.com, so that your listeners will know that if they want to support me they need to go to SharronAngle.com."

Angle recently conceded she only wants to talk to media that will let her beg for cash on the air, and notice that Fox News didn't edit out her shameless plug.

But that's clearly not the interesting part here. Sharron Angle said, on the record and on camera, that her campaign's media strategy is built around the notion of manipulating news organizations, getting the questions Angle wants, so she can give the answers she wants, so the public will hear the news the way Angle wants it to be heard.

I expect Angle to say insane things, but this is truly remarkable. I'm trying to imagine what the response on the right would be if President Obama said he needs independent news organizations to be his "friend," which is why he demands that reporters ask the questions he wants to answer "so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported."

Even Fox News noted that Angle was "too honest" with her remarks. National Review added, "Did She Just Say That Out Loud?"

I'll look forward to conservatives' defense of this. They're a creative bunch, and I can hardly wait to see what they come up with.

Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share

OBAMA: GOP 'BETTING ON AMNESIA'.... President Obama was in Atlanta yesterday afternoon, and after speaking on U.S. policy in Iraq at the convention of Disabled American Veterans, he appeared at a DNC fundraiser.

That Obama is clearly in campaign mode is no longer especially noteworthy, but these speeches are interesting to the extent that they offer a look at the message Democrats will be pushing between now and November. For the president, that means urging voters not to let the country slip backwards: "[T]he choice is whether we want to go forward or we want to go backwards to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place."

"Now, understand, it'd be one thing if the Republicans had seen the error of their ways. (Laughter.) Right? I mean, if after the rejections of 2006 and 2008, realizing, gosh, look at this big disaster that we caused and taking record surpluses into record deficits and causing all this hardship -- we're going to rethink our approach and go out in the wilderness for a while, come back with some new ideas. (Laughter.)

"But that's not what happened. It's not like they've engaged in some heavy reflection. They have not come up with a single, solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the American people. They don't have a single idea that's different from George Bush's ideas -- not one. (Applause.)

"Instead, they're betting on amnesia. (Laughter.) That's what they're counting on. They're counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. (Laughter.) Bamboozle you." (Laughter.)

It's clearly a fair point. In 2006 and 2008, Republicans suffered some pretty stunning electoral setbacks, and in the wake of those defeats, the party changed ... nothing. No new ideas, no shifts to the middle, no new approaches to solving problems. Indeed, for the most part, they've done the opposite -- asking voters to give them a chance to pursue the "exact same" agenda that didn't work when Bush/Cheney tried it.

And so the undercurrent of the GOP message really is predicated on memory loss -- so long as voters don't remember the mess Republicans created, and don't remember the failures of their agenda when they pushed it before, they should do fine.

What Obama didn't mention is that the Republicans' tack may very well work -- because voters really do tend to have short memories.

In his Atlanta remarks, the president also made use of the car metaphor he's grown to love.

"I mean, think about it, these are the folks who were behind the steering wheel and drove the car into the ditch. So we've had to put on our galoshes, we went down there in the mud, we've been pushing, we've been shoving. They've been standing back, watching, saying, 'You're not moving fast enough, you ain't doing it right. (Laughter.) Why are you doing it that way? You got some mud on the car.' Right? (Applause.)

"That's all right. We don't need help. We're just going to keep on pushing. We push, we push. The thing is slipping a little bit, but we stay with it. Finally -- finally -- we get this car out of the ditch, where we're just right there on the blacktop. We're about to start driving forward again. They say, 'Hold on, we want the keys back.' (Laughter and applause.) You can't have the keys back -- you don't know how to drive. (Laughter and applause.) You don't know how to drive.

"And I do want to point out, when you get in your car, when you go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you want to go back, what do you do? (Laughter.) You put it in 'R.' We won't do want to go into reverse back in the ditch. We want to go forwards. We got to put it in 'D.' (Applause.) Can't have the keys back." (Laughter.)

I don't imagine this is the last time we'll hear this.

In terms of issues, the president went on to call out congressional Republicans -- who love showing up for "ribbon-cuttings" when funds are being spent -- for blocking small business tax cuts, blocking infrastructure investment, blocking clean energy jobs, vowing to repeal health care reform, vowing to repeal Wall Street reform, opposing student loan reform, opposing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, supporting tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires without paying for them, protecting oil companies like BP, and opposing the rescue of the auto industry.

That may sound like a lot, but it's only because it's a target-rich environment.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

MCCONNELL CALLS FOR 14TH AMENDMENT HEARING.... For about 142 years now, the American political mainstream hasn't been especially troubled by the first 28 words of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But the drive to scrap this constitutional right -- in response to anti-immigrant hysteria among conservatives -- is spreading quickly. What was up until recently a fringe right-wing fantasy is now being taken seriously at the highest levels of Republican politics.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress "ought to take a look at" changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.

McConnell's statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country's immigration problem.

Unlike Lindsey Graham, McConnell didn't explicitly call for a constitutional amendment to repeal part of the 14th, but described the matter as "something that we clearly need to look at."

He added, "Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with."

I have no idea what this means. Everyone is uncomfortable with birthright citizenship? The law of the land for the last 142 years, written into constitutional stone, has gone from being universally accepted to universally reviled ... because Mitch McConnell says so?

Chances are, the Democratic majority won't take these calls for hearings especially seriously, but if there's a Republican majority in the next Congress, it seems quite likely that questioning the 14th Amendment will be fairly high on the GOP to-do list.

If I had to guess, I'd say this is political posturing taken to an extreme level. In times of economic anxiety, the right historically exploits public fears and attacks immigrants, making this constitutional push offensive, but at least somewhat consistent with conservative history.

But to dismiss this effort to appeal to right-wing voters as routine and unimportant would be a mistake. We're talking about a major political party, perhaps even a soon-to-be congressional majority, rejecting the tenets of the 14th Amendment for crying out loud. And not just some obscure back-benchers or powerless state legislators -- this is becoming the GOP mainstream position thanks to the support of the most powerful figures in Republican politics.

Just when it seemed as if the Republican Party couldn't possibly become more irresponsible, more detached from a sensible mainstream, more beholden to demagogues and fanatics, the GOP kicks things up a notch. Whether they're rewarded for their extremism will be clear in 13 weeks.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

Bookmark and Share

PLAYING HIDE AND SEEK WITH THE HOUSE GOP.... Members of the U.S. House have already begun their August recess, and with 13 weeks until the midterm elections, voters can expect some pretty aggressive campaigning -- that is, if they can find their representative.

The Republican line is that Democrats intend to keep a low profile. On MSNBC yesterday, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) boasted, "I would venture to say that Democrats have gone into hiding, whereas John Boehner and I and the rest of our conference are out there, taking our message to the people." Roll Call added, "After a series of rowdy town halls last August, House Republicans have accused Democrats of 'hiding' in their districts instead of engaging the public."

House Dems tend to point to reality -- Democrats have held more town-hall events in recent months than their Republican counterparts -- but it's also worth keeping in mind that the GOP criticism is at odds with their own caucus' sudden introversion.

Several House Republicans are balking at a request by their leadership to offer up a copy of their August schedules for a GOP Conference online database.

"My constituents know how to find me," Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said. "I'm listed in the phone book."

GOP leaders have asked Members to submit their schedules as part of their "America Speaking Out" agenda project, but some Republicans said doing so would only create opportunities for their opponents to embarrass them.

What a bizarre approach. The GOP's line is that Dems are hiding for fear of public backlash, which happens to coincide with several House Republicans choosing to keep their public schedules under wraps, for fear of embarrassment.

So much for the Republican swagger.

In a way, this is understandable. Well-publicized, public events in which voters can engage their representatives do carry a risk -- GOP incumbents might be asked to explain themselves. Given the recent conduct of congressional Republicans, and the kind of questions they may be forced to endure, hiding may seem like a good idea.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

SHOWDOWN OVER STATE, TEACHER AID DELAYED.... It was poised to be a pivotal moment in the Senate, and a key test of the chamber's Republican "moderates."

Democrats had crafted a package with $10 billion to save school teachers' jobs, and $16.1 billion in state Medicaid funding (FMAP). The measure was financed through a combination of cuts and closing foreign tax credit loopholes. For Republicans who claim to want to improve the economy, but not at the expense of the deficit, there were no excuses -- Dems offered a modest, sensible bill, which would save jobs, help struggling states, all without adding to the deficit.

But before the GOP "moderates" could come up with some new rationalization to once again block a jobs bill, the package ran into some CBO trouble.

The Senate tabled a jobs measure Monday because Democrats underestimated the package's cost.

Democrats had scheduled a vote to end debate on their proposal ... but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored the bill and found that it wasn't fully paid for, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday.

"Certain spending cuts did not save the [money] that we needed," Reid said.

Senate Democrats' proposal included budget numbers that were part of a CBO score of a previous House measure, but those costs had since changed, Reid said.

As structured, the bill would be partially paid for, the CBO concluded, but would nevertheless add $5 billion to the deficit.

Ideally, this wouldn't much matter. When Republicans don't like CBO scores, they ignore them and say the CBO doesn't matter anyway. What's more, it's $5 billion. If it were tax cuts or Pentagon spending, $5 billion would be considered a rounding error.

But when it's teachers' jobs on the line, a bill that's only mostly paid for, and which enjoys the support of a majority of the Senate, can't even get a vote.

The Senate leadership will scramble today to address the shortfall and ensure that the bill is paid for, which in turn will set up another showdown -- and other opportunity for Senate Republicans to undermine the economy. The GOP will also continue to make the process as long as possible -- this is the last week before the chamber's August recess -- in the hopes that absolutely nothing can get done before senators head home.

In the meantime, even if the Senate somehow manages to find one GOP vote and pass this bill, it will head back to the House, which is already in recess and won't return until September. In the interim, teachers will lose their jobs, and get a lesson in how Republican officials are slowly chipping away at the ability of our institutions to function.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 2, 2010

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The next big step in the Gulf: "BP plans to begin easing mud into its runaway well in the Gulf of Mexico by Monday night, a preliminary step in a 'static kill' procedure that potentially could kill the Macondo well by midweek."

* There were several encouraging economic reports released this morning, including "the Institute for Supply Management's index of U.S. manufacturing activity" which showed better-than-expected results for July.

* Within the hour, the Senate will vote to end a filibuster on a bill for state aid and teacher funding -- every penny of which is paid for. Sources tell me Republicans are likely to kill the legislation anyway, just because. I'll have a full report in the morning.

* On a related note, the small-business-incentives bill isn't quite dead yet.

* As expected, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) will face an ethics committee trial "for her role in steering federal funds to a bank to which she is personally connected."

* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced today he will not let the Senate consider James Clapper's nomination as the next director of national intelligence. Clapper was unanimously approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, but McCain does enjoy his tantrums.

* The House passed new safeguards for offshore drilling late last week. Senate Republicans will probably kill the bill.

* Newsweek was sold today to industrialist Sidney Harman. Jon Meacham is departing as the magazine's editor.

* I was under the impression that Dick Cheney had left the hospital. He hasn't.

* The RNC still isn't distancing itself from right-wing hatchetman Andrew Breitbart.

* Michelle Obama continues to tout the Child Nutrition Bill.

* On net neutrality, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) gets it.

* Former Vice President Al Gore will not face prosecution "on an allegation of sexual assault from 2006."

* It's frustrating when turnout for primaries is low.

* When states struggle to manage higher education spending.

* Ed Luce does a fine job documenting the "crisis of middle-class America."

* And Elon Green takes a very compelling -- and very amusing -- look at Pam Geller's "The Post-American Presidency."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

ACCORDING TO PLAN IN IRAQ.... Given the political environment, it's not surprising that President Obama seems anxious to tout good news. Late last week, that meant traveling to Michigan to point to the success of his rescue of the American auto industry. This morning, it meant noting significant progress on what was once the biggest issue on the political landscape.

Nearly eight years after he denounced what he called a "dumb war" in Iraq and nearly two years after he won the White House promising to end it, President Obama marked the formal conclusion of the combat mission in a country still finding its way in a new era.

"As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," Mr. Obama told a convention of Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta on Monday. "Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010, America's combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing -- as promised and on schedule."

By the end of this month, the American force in Iraq will have shrunk to just 50,000 troops, from 144,000. The remaining "advise and assist" brigades will officially focus on supporting and training Iraqi security forces, protecting American personnel and facilities and mounting counterterrorism operations. Those 50,000 troops are due to leave by the end of 2011.

It would be a stretch to characterize conditions in Iraq as terrific. Indeed, the political disputes in Baghdad are hardening: "Nearly five months after disputed parliamentary elections, leading Iraqi politicians say they have all but abandoned hope of resolving an impasse over forming a new government before fall. The protracted stalemate is a scenario U.S. officials have long dreaded."

It's no doubt why the president avoided any kind of message today that could be interpreted as "mission accomplished." But just three days after the president took a victory lap on one success story, there was reason for Obama to take some pride in his Iraq policy -- he's doing what he said he'd do.

Some critics have said Mr. Obama ought to slow the drawdown to make sure insurgents cannot take advantage of the current political confusion.

But White House officials said they believed it was safe to stick to the original timetable because the caretaker government had proved effective at maintaining security despite the political stalemate. Moreover, they noted that the 50,000 American troops that would remain constituted a powerful force in their own right, capable of handling various contingencies.

Just as an aside, note that Obama delivered his remarks at the convention of the Disabled American Veterans. George W. Bush had been invited to address the DAV convention every year of his presidency, but he declined all eight times, at least in part because he preferred not to work in August.

This seems at least as interesting as the "snub" of the Boy Scouts.

Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Throughout July, Republican leaders were aggressive in touting their belief in the Tax Fairy -- there's no need to worry about paying for tax cuts, because they magically pay for themselves. It was a startling example of "invincible ignorance," but from the Senate Minority Leader to unelected GOP candidates, this was the official party line.

This morning on MSNBC, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) accidentally noted the truth about Republican demands to extend Bush's tax cuts. Host Savannah Guthrie asked Cantor if he would "simply acknowledge that passing these tax cuts worsens the budget deficit problem." Cantor dodged, arguing that people don't want to see "a tax hike."

So, Guthrie tried again, asking if Cantor "had any dispute with the notion that it does exacerbate the deficit picture." The Republican replied, "What I said in the beginning is, um, if you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators."

That's quite a concession. Cantor is willing to admit that tax cuts would "dig the hole deeper" when it comes to the deficit -- a fact that's consistent with common sense, but which Republicans have fought vehemently for a month -- but believes the economy is more important than the deficit.

Oddly enough, I consider this something of a breakthrough. For 18 months, Democrats, most notably President Obama, have said the deficit matters, but the state of the economy matters more. Republicans and their Tea Party base have argued the opposite, insisting that the deficit has to take priority; we're facing a debt crisis; etc.

Cantor's line, repeated as if it were obvious, puts Republicans in a different place -- if boosting the economy means "digging the hole deeper," so be it. I happen to agree wholeheartedly.

At this point, then, it's time for a different debate. For a year and a half, it's been economic growth vs. deficit reduction. Cantor is signaling a new argument -- economic growth through spending vs. economic growth through tax cuts.

Instead of arguing over whether to increase the deficit, Cantor seems prepared to concede the point, and argue deficit increases are unfortunately necessary. Democrats should welcome his new-found wisdom, and initiate a discussion over the efficacy of spending vs. the efficacy of tax cuts.

Since we already know we get a much better bang for the buck when it comes to spending, it's an argument Republicans will lose, at least if reality had any bearing on the outcome of policy debates.

Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

STEELE EXPECTS TO KEEP HIS JOB?.... Michael Steele's reign as chairman of the National Republican Committee hasn't been pretty. Gaffes, scandals, mismanagement, poor fundraising, and general incompetence have made Steele something of a laughingstock. He's nearly been forced from his job on more than a few occasions, but I've long assumed the party would just wait patiently for his term to end early next year -- and then never speak of him again.

But it appears that Steele not only expects to complete his two-year term, he also intends to seek another.

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele is prepared to run for re-election to his post even if former Minnesota Governor Norm Coleman, the rumored favorite of other party insiders, decides to mount a challenge.

The current chairman told a conservative reporter last week that he was prepared to put his record up against those who wanted his position -- foreshadowing what could be a bitter and divisive election battle in January 2011.

"Norm is an old friend," Steele said when asked about recent reports that Coleman was considering a run for chairmanship of the RNC. "Norm is not going to challenge me for RNC chairman. If he does I'll put my record up against anyone who comes after to me. I feel confident we'll get re-elected. I'm not worried about that part of it."

Now, in fairness, it appears Steele was duped -- a reporter asked for comment pretending to be a hedge fund executive and prospective RNC donor. The chairman said the "interview" was "not kosher," and he has a point.

Nevertheless, his comments make clear that the gift that keeps on giving intends to stick around -- or at least try to -- through 2012.

I try to avoid predictions, but I suspect RNC members will have no interest in keeping Steele on the job one day longer than is necessary. Whether Republicans have a blockbuster cycle or fall short of their expectations, Steele is the worst major-party chairman in recent memory. I just can't imagine the party's leadership voluntarily allowing him to stay.

Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

CUCCINELLI'S 'WIN' IS ONLY PROCEDURAL.... Virginia's comically-right-wing state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, filed suit in March, hoping to undermine the Affordable Care Act by claiming that an individual mandate is unconstitutional. Most legal experts, including many conservatives, find the case to be pretty frivolous -- a former Bush/Cheney U.S. attorney said the litigation not only lacks merit, but should be "seen as a political exercise" -- and Cuccinelli has struggled to explain why this isn't a waste of taxpayer money.

Obama administration attorneys hoped to bounce the case right out of court before the proceedings could get underway in earnest. In a move that will probably delight the far-right, a district court judge announced this morning that the case can proceed.

A federal judge Monday refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.

Before anyone gets too excited about this, it's a procedural victory, not a measure of success on the merits. The judge didn't say Cuccinelli's right; the judge said he'd give Cuccinelli's argument a full hearing. The issue at hand today was one over "standing" -- whether Cuccinelli is in a legally justifiable position to file the lawsuit in the first place, giving the court the jurisdiction to hear the case. The administration hoped to convince Hudson that the Virginia AG hadn't even met this threshold, but the court disagreed. So, the suit lives to see another day.

Regrettably, Judge Hudson's objectivity is already in doubt. He's a Bush/Cheney appointee, and more importantly, the Huffington Post noted that the judge "has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform."

Nevertheless, the issue continues to be over the legality of the mandate. Folks who never seemed especially troubled by mandatory auto insurance or mandatory flood insurance in some parts of the country have now concluded that a health care mandate is the most offensive idea they've ever heard. It's the basis of GOP litigation, and ballot measures at the state level touted by right-wing activists.

It's worth taking a moment, then, to remember a couple of things. First, the concept of an individual mandate as part of health care reform was, in fact, a Republican idea. Indeed, leading GOP senators were on board with the mandate as recently as a year ago. It's a detail that seems to be easily forgotten by those who hope you're not paying attention.

Second, note why the mandate exists. If a policy bans discrimination on those with pre-existing conditions, it must also include an individual mandate. It's not that complicated -- if those with pre-existing conditions are to be protected, the mandate is necessary to keep costs from spiraling and to prevent the "free rider" problem.

Of course, if there's an individual mandate, then it's also necessary to include subsidies to those who otherwise couldn't afford coverage. And once you put this string together -- protections for those with pre-existing conditions ... which requires a mandate ... which requires subsidies -- what you're left with is the Affordable Care Act.

But let's say the Republican crusade against their own idea is successful. It probably won't be, but let's just say it is. Here's the question for the GOP: how are you going to clean up the mess? The mandate brings everyone into the system and keeps costs down. If the right scraps the mandate, the new health care law will still exist; it'll just be more expensive.

Is this the Republican plan, or have they just not thought this through?

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

A TALE OF TWO SCANDALS, CONT'D.... We've talked a bit lately about a curious set of circumstances: Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics controversy is generating considerable attention, while Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) criminal investigation is largely ignored, despite a series of recent developments. Chris Hayes and I had a chance to chat about it on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday night.

I'm delighted to see the question get asked in other forums. On "This Week" yesterday, Paul Krugman raised the issue, and said he doesn't understand the disparity, either. "There are actually two major investigations of members of Congress underway right now," Krugman noted. "There's Charlie Rangel, who's accused of some fairly petty, although stupid and wrong, ethical violations, and there's Sen. John Ensign, who's facing a criminal investigation and which actually -- it's even a story that involves sex. And you get no publicity whatsoever on the Ensign investigation."

Host Christiane Amanpour asked George Will if this is fair. He replied:

"Well, Rangel is much more important, because he's chairman of an important committee. And in fact, Rangel's misfortune is a national misfortune, because we desperately need -- and after the deficit commission reports in December, we might have had -- serious tax reform in this country. That requires a cooperative member leading that committee in the House."

As Jon Chait reminds us, that's wrong. Rangel isn't the chairman of an important committee; he was the chairman of an important committee. In March, Rangel gave up his Ways & Means gavel, and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) is in the big chair now. Ethics charges against the guy who used to be a key committee chairman isn't nearly as interesting.

Indeed, Will's argument isn't just factually mistaken, it's based on a false assumption. Rangel could help move a tax reform proposal, but Levin can't? If anything, that's probably backwards, since Rangel, even if he'd kept his gavel, saw his reputation tarnished by the probe.

OK, so Will's wrong. But why is Rangel's ethics problem getting vast amounts of attention, while Ensign's criminal problem is getting ignored? I suggested the IOKIYAR rule might play a role here, and Chris made the case that it'd be a bigger story if Democrats pushed it more. Both seem plausible.

Some commenters have suggested a regional dynamic -- major news outlets are in New York, not Las Vegas -- while race may also be a factor.

Whatever the reasoning, if the heretofore ignored grand jury in the Ensign sex-ethics-corruption scandal starts issuing indictments, it's a whole new ballgame.

Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE THE FREE MARKET CAN PROTECT MINERS, TOO.... After 29 miners were killed at West Virginia's Upper Big Branch coal mine -- at a non-union site run by a company that preferred to ignore regulations -- it's tempting to think regional candidates for public office wouldn't have the chutzpah to support deregulation.

Kentucky's Rand Paul, however, is not your normal extremist candidate.

Reform-minded lawmakers in both the House and Senate are pushing legislation to bolster the work-safety protections for miners working underground. But don't try to convince Rand Paul.

The Republican running to replace outgoing Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) in the coal-mining hub of Kentucky said recently that Washington has no business formulating mine safety rules.

"The bottom line is: I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules," Paul said at a recent campaign stop in response to questions about April's deadly mining explosion in West Virginia, according to a profile in Details magazine. "You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."

"I know that doesn't sound ... I want to be compassionate, and I'm sorry for what happened, but I wonder: Was it just an accident?"

Investigators still hope to determine the cause of the disaster, but Democrats in Congress intend to pass stronger regulations to prevent more deadly incidents from happening again. Republicans are resisting, and Rand Paul continues to stake out a pro-industry, anti-worker position.

More to the point, Paul is running on a platform of ignorance -- he's not qualified to shape federal policy, so send him to Washington, where federal policy is written, so he can avoid shaping federal policy.

Since the industry is doing such a bang-up job*, I'm sure coal miners will have nothing to worry about if Rand Paul is in the Senate looking out for them.

* edited for clarity

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

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 a bit of a surprise, the latest Denver Post poll in Colorado shows Andrew Romanoff closing very strong in his Democratic primary against Sen. Michael Bennet, taking a narrow lead over the appointed incumbent, 48% to 45%. In the GOP Senate primary, Ken Buck leads Jane Norton in the poll by a wider margin, 50% to 41%.

* In Kentucky, a Bluegrass Poll conducted for the Louisville Courier-Journal shows Rand Paul (R) continuing to lead state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) in this year's Senate race, 51% to 43%.

* Confirming several other recent surveys, the latest Florida Poll shows Gov. Charlie Crist (I) leading this year's Senate race with 41% support. Marco Rubio (R) is second with 30%, followed by Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) with 12%.

* Speaking of Florida, Democratic Senate hopeful Jeff Greene fired Joe Trippi from his campaign team over the weekend. (Greene was also the subject of an extremely unflattering St. Petersburg Times profile, which ran yesterday.)

* As if Illinois' Senate race isn't quite odd enough, voters will apparently vote for a new senator and a temporary senator at the same time.

* In Minnesota, the latest poll from the Star Tribune shows former Sen. Mark Dayton leading the Democratic gubernatorial primary with 40%. Margaret Anderson Kelliher is second with 30%

* Interesting development in Texas: "More than a dozen prominent Dallas business and civic leaders, including several who supported Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Republican primary for governor, have signed a letter backing Democrat Bill White in his effort to unseat Republican Gov. Rick Perry in the Nov. 2 general election."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE SHE SHOULD AVOID USE OF THE WORD 'IDIOTIC'.... On "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, Chris Wallace chatted for a bit with former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) about, among other things, tax policy. Wallace noted, for example, that taxes went up during the Clinton years and the economy did really well. For that matter, Palin demands keeping all of Bush's failed tax cuts in place, but as Wallace reminded her, she doesn't say how she'd pay for them.

She replied:

"Yeah. No. This is going to result in the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And again, it's idiotic. And my palm isn't large enough to write -- to have written all my notes down on what this tax increase -- what it will result in.

"Let me just go through a couple of things that I want people to be aware of, because, you know, the spin coming from Gibbs and the White House -- you're never going to get the truth out of their messaging.

"But Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history. It's a tax increase of $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, and it will have an effect on every single American who pays an income tax. Small businesses especially will be hit hardest."

When Wallace asked what Palin had written on her palm, she explained, "$3.8 trillion, next 10 years, so I didn't say 3.7 and then get dinged, you know, by the -- by the liberals saying I didn't know what I was talking about."

Well, I'm a liberal, and I'm still comfortable noting that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

For one thing, Democrats, at a minimum, want to keep the current tax rates in place for those making less than $250,000 a year. Palin's assumption is based on a full repeal of all the cuts, which isn't the plan. Palin either (a) isn't paying enough attention to the debate, (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator; or (c) is lying and hoping the public is too confused to know the difference.

As Ruth Marcus noted, "No matter how many times Sarah Palin writes it on her palm, it's not true." In a message to the conspicuously unintelligent Fox News personality, Marcus added, "Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about."

For another, the $3.8 trillion figure is also wrong, even if Dems intended to let all of Bush's cuts expire, which they don't.

And finally, the most sensible approach to dealing with a struggling economy is to increase spending and stimulate growth. Palin wants to cut spending and keep tax cuts for the wealthy which already failed.

Something to keep in mind the next she's tempted to call something "idiotic."

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

REMEMBERING THE WAR DEAD NEED NOT BE CONTROVERSIAL.... On her debut episode hosting ABC's "This Week," Christiane Amanpour included an "In Memoriam" segment, which took note of, among others, fallen American soldiers who died in combat.

In the voice-over, Amanpour noted that the segment was in remembrance of "all of those who died in war." Apparently, that rubbed Tom Shales the wrong way: "Did she mean to suggest that our mourning extend to members of the Taliban?"

What a bizarre question. Eric Boehlert added:

Are you kidding me? Shales really suggested that on her network debut, Amanpour gave a shout-out to members of the Taliban who died in combat last week? What is wrong with this man and when will Shales have the decency to extend an apology to Amanpour? [...]

Shales must have been the only viewer on the planet who thought Amanpour was honoring fallen terrorists on ABC yesterday.

I think that's right, though now that Shales has brought it up, at least one high-profile right-wing blog is picking up the same argument.

I have no idea why the right decided to hate Amanpour -- Fox News once suggested she might be perceived as "a spokeswoman for al Qaeda" -- but this is pretty crazy.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

MAKING THE TRANSITION TO 'CRAZY-CONS'.... I suspect I'm not the only one who hopes desperately that there are still some conservatives who see what's become of the right -- the radicalism, the lack of intellectual seriousness, the immaturity -- and shake their heads in disgust. Even if most of these conservatives keep quiet, out of a sense of loyalty and/or fear of reprisals, it would be reassuring to know the discomfort actually exists.

We occasionally receive such hints. Take this piece from David Klinghoffer, for example. Klinghoffer is not a moderate -- he's a former National Review editor, and currently a senior fellow at a conservative think tank. But surveying his conservative brethren, Klinghoffer sees "a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism."

Once, the iconic figures on the political right were urbane visionaries and builders of institutions -- like William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now. Today, far more representative is potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, whose news and opinion website, Breitbart.com, is read by millions. In his most recent triumph, Breitbart got a U.S. Department of Agriculture official pushed out of her job after he released a deceptively edited video clip of her supposedly endorsing racism against white people.

What has become of conservatism? [...]

Buckley's National Review, where I was the literary editor through the 1990s, remains as vital and interesting as ever. But more characteristic of conservative leadership are figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments. With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism. Once the talk was of "neocons" versus "paleocons." Now we observe the rule of the crazy-cons.

I can't relate to the admiration of conservatism's forebearers -- Buckley, for example, was an ardent opponent of Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement -- but in the larger sense, Klinghoffer notes that the right at least used to care about ideas. There was a genuine desire to think about policy that has all but disappeared.

Stephen Bainbridge, a conservative professor, can relate to the frustration: "These days ... the most prominent so-called conservatives are increasingly fit only to be cast for the next Dumb and Dumber sequel. They're dumb and crazy." (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip)

Whether the movement may someday rediscover its grown-ups is unclear, but the more those on the right decry the pathetic state of modern conservatism, the more likely we'll see the "crazy-cons" lose some of their influence.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

WEINER SPARKS DISCUSSION ABOUT PASSION, 'DISTEMPER'.... Late last week, House Republicans took the surprising step of killing the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, blasting federal funds for 9/11 victims as a "slush fund." In a video I suspect everyone has seen by now, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose constituents include many directly affected by this legislation, condemned GOP arguments in a fiery floor speech.

Weiner's display generated more discussion than is usual for a two-minute set of remarks on the House floor, but the reactions from the left have generally been quite positive. David Kurtz described Weiner as "my kind of Democrat." Michael Tomasky added, "This is what the Democrats need more of. One of the big differences between the two parties is a really simple thing: passion.... [Democrats] just need to show people they have some fight in them."

Greg Sargent took a different tack, lauding Weiner's passion as "emotionally satisfying," but arguing that "raging against the GOP opposition machine's successful efforts to tie Dems in knots just makes Dems look whiny, weak and impotent."

I think there's some room for both contingents to be right about this -- passion is good, and so is tactical awareness -- but I noticed over the weekend that the establishment line was less kind. Here's Dan Balz:

What happened on the House floor Thursday underscores why many Americans have lost confidence in the institution and its members. Anyone watching cable news the past 48 hours has probably seen Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) in a full-throated diatribe -- aimed at the Republicans.

Weiner may have had good reason to be upset. Republicans added a politically charged amendment involving illegal immigrants to an otherwise seemingly popular bill that would enhance health benefits for first responders to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, who continue to suffer respiratory and other ailments.

Weiner knew that the bill was being held up by politics. But he lost control on the floor of the House. His behavior, not the merits of his argument, became the story. Aficionados of New York politics contend that Weiner's attention-getting display is part of a strategy to make himself mayor after Michael Bloomberg finishes his third term. Whatever his motives, Weiner turned into the poster child for congressional distemper.

There are, in effect, two ways the media could come down on a story like this. Weiner either (a) delivered a powerful stem-winder, passionately denouncing pointless Republican obstructionism, and giving voice to a frustrated progressive base; or (b) lost his cool, overshadowed his subject, and "turned into the poster child for congressional distemper."

I get the sense the media responds with a reflexive discomfort to heated Democratic emotions.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

Bookmark and Share

KYL KEEPS FIBBING ABOUT CRIME IN ARIZONA.... There's been a fair amount of attention surrounding Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) comments yesterday about ending birthright citizenship, as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. And it's true -- the fact that a once-obscure right-wing dream has quickly become a common talking point for the Republican leadership is pretty interesting.

But during Kyl's interview with CBS's Harry Smith on "Face the Nation," there was another exchange (pdf) that stood out.

SMITH: [O]ne of the things that's come to light over the last couple of weeks is in some of these border towns that were thought to be susceptible to law-breaking of illegal immigrants, crime is actually down. Crime in Phoenix, for instance, is down significantly over the last couple of years.

KYL: Well that's -- that's a gross generalization. Property crimes are up. Certain violent crimes on certain parts of the citizenry are up.

SMITH: Mm-Hm.

KYL: Phoenix is the -- it is a very large source of kidnapping. It's called the kidnapping capital of the United States because the illegal immigrants who are brought to Phoenix for distribution throughout the country are held in drop houses, and they are mistreated, horribly treated. They are held for ransom for their families back in Mexico or in El Salvador, or wherever to send more money or they won't be released and so on. So there's a great deal of violence and crime associated with the presence of illegal immigrants.

There's quite a few problems with this, which Kyl is probably aware of.

For example, talking about a significant decrease in crime along the border isn't a "gross generalization"; it's reality. Crime in Arizona border towns, for example, has been "essentially flat for the past decade." According to the FBI, violent crime is lower now than a decade ago in every state along the U.S./Mexico border.

But it was more interesting to hear Kyl bring up Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) favorite talking point: Arizona is "the kidnapping capital of the United States." The claim has already been debunked, but notice how Kyl changes the talking point -- he said yesterday that kidnapping is a problem in Phoenix because of "the illegal immigrants who are brought to Phoenix."

That's never been the right-wing argument. The whole idea is to scare the bejesus out of people, giving the impression that local residents are routinely plucked off the streets of Phoenix by marauding bands of dangerous Mexicans.

But note how Kyl is changing it up -- he's not arguing that people in Phoenix are being kidnapped; he's arguing that people are kidnapped and brought to Phoenix. By this reasoning, it's not a city for kidnapping; it's a city for kidnappers.

I realize Kyl is playing a bit of a game, using demagoguery to support an odious anti-immigrant state law, and making excuses to oppose comprehensive reform. But as the interview shows, his talking points need some work.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

MUSICAL CHAIRS IN THE WH BRIEFING ROOM.... It is, by definition, a story for Washington insiders about Washington insiders, but interest in which news organization would get Helen Thomas' seat in the White House briefing room became something of a parlor game.

Thomas' abrupt resignation in June meant the front-row-center seat was up for grabs, with three outlets vying for the coveted spot: Fox News, Bloomberg, and NPR. As the White House Correspondents Association neared a decision, there was actually some grassroots organizing on the subject, with CREDO Action and MoveOn.org campaigning to oppose Fox News' bid.

The result is a game of musical chairs.

Fox News moves up, The Associated Press moves over and National Public Radio comes in second.

Mark your seating charts. The new assignments for the White House briefing room are in.

The A.P. correspondent will get the highly coveted front-row center seat previously occupied by Helen Thomas, the White House Correspondents Association announced Sunday.

The reporter for Fox will take The A.P.'s former front-row seat, moving up from the second row, and National Public Radio, now in the third-row, will replace Fox.

Here's a chart of the seating arrangements as they existed before yesterday's announcement. Fox News will go from a second-row-center seat to front-row-left; AP will go from front-row-left to front-row-center; and NPR will go from third-row-right to second-row-center.

The Washington Times will move from the third to the fourth row, while Politico and American Urban Radio Networks will move up to the third row. The Financial Times will, for the first time, get a regular seat in the briefing room, while U.S. News & World Report, which was sharing a fifth-row seat, has lost its position altogether.

To be sure, this isn't exactly important news, and squabbling over seating assignments seems pretty silly for adults. But if there's a disappointment here, it's that Fox News is being treated as a legitimate, professional journalistic enterprise, and it shouldn't be. It will join a front-row with credible media powerhouses -- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Reuters, and AP -- producing a rather powerful "one of these things is not like the other" moment.

Fox News is a propaganda outlet, a detail everyone seems to know, but which is apparently impolite to say out loud. The network's proponents will likely argue a front-row seat is warranted because Fox News has a lot of viewers. Perhaps. But Milli Vanilli sold a lot of records, and success didn't make them legitimate recording artists.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share
 
August 1, 2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... One of the uglier strains of modern conservative thought is pervasive anti-intellectualism. As Faiz Shakir noted today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) offered a rather classic example on "Fox News Sunday."

Host Chris Wallace noted that "a number of top economists" believe that the nation, right now, needs "more economic stimulus." Boehner replied, "Well, I don't need to see GDP numbers or to listen to economists; all I need to do is listen to the American people."

That's actually kind of crazy -- the "American people," en masse, lack the qualifications and background needed to make sweeping decisions about complex economic policies. It's why our system is built around the notion that voters will choose sensible representatives to do this work for us -- evaluate a situation, consider the judgment of experts, and ideally reach a wise decision about the way forward.

If Boehner were facing a serious ailment, would he say, "Well, I don't need to see lab results or to listen to medical professionals; all I need to do is listen to the American people"? Maybe so, but at this point, the serious ailment is our national economy, and it affects us all.

When Wallace pressed Boehner on how he'd pay for trillions of dollars in tax cuts, the would-be Speaker eventually concluded, "This is the whole Washington mindset, all these CBO numbers."

I don't even know what this means. "All these CBO numbers"? Boehner loves those CBO numbers, when they're telling him what he wants to hear. But when tax cuts for billionaires are on the line, suddenly objective, independent budget data is deemed useless.

There's just no seriousness here. Boehner comes to the debate with all the sophistication of a drunk guy yelling at the TV from the end of a bar. He hasn't thought any of this through, and seems prepared to argue that he shouldn't think things though because forethought is part of "the whole Washington mindset."

If I thought Boehner was just playing for the cameras, throwing out garbage on Fox News, when in reality he actually takes reason, evidence, and arithmetic seriously, I wouldn't be scared of his leadership role. But all available evidence suggests Boehner simply doesn't know what he's doing and he believes his own nonsense.

As political hackery goes, it's the worst possible combination of traits.

Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

Bookmark and Share

BRODER LOOKS AHEAD TO A POSSIBLE 2011.... As David Broder sees it, the White House is already preparing itself -- mentally, emotionally, strategically, substantively -- for expected Republican gains in the midterm elections. The columnist quoted an insider who told him, "If you asked the president what he would really like for Christmas, it would be a smart loyal opposition."

Anyone who's watched congressional Republicans at all since January 2009 knows how unlikely this is. Broder highlights some GOP leaders of years past -- Dirksen, Dole, Baker -- who "mostly opposed Democratic presidents but made common cause with them on certain national and international issues." Though Broder doesn't mention it, these senators came from eras when Republicans had grown-ups in leadership positions, a dynamic that has sadly disappeared.

That said, the column identifies a few areas where President Obama might be able to work with congressional Republicans, including a South Korean trade deal and the administration's education policy, which the right does not reflexively hate. This assumes, of course, that a GOP majority would have any interest in governing at all in 2011 and 2012, which strikes me as highly unlikely.

But one Broder observation stood out.

As the problem of long-term joblessness has drawn increasing White House attention, thoughts have turned again to the need for large-scale investment in all kinds of infrastructure projects, electronic as well as physical. Obama has set staffers to searching for innovative ways to finance such projects, with some form of public-private partnership, and has asked them to invite Republicans to come forward with ideas that could significantly reduce the ranks of seemingly permanent unemployed construction workers.

It's hard to be optimistic about this. As Digby noted, "What a great idea. I have no doubt that the Republicans are going to step up with all kinds of great ideas for this. I know, how about some tax cuts for rich people?"

There's still a temptation among many in the political/media establishment to pretend that congressional Republicans are a credible major-party caucus capable of problem-solving, creative solutions, and bipartisan compromise. I haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would believe such a fanciful notion.

Look at Broder's paragraph again -- there's talk of large-scale infrastructure investment, which contemporary Republicans reject out of hand. There's talk of public-private partnerships, which the GOP of late has found offensive. There's talking of inviting Republicans to "come forward with ideas," but that invitation was extended nearly two years ago, and all the GOP can offer is a combination of tax cuts and deregulation -- and in several instances, Republicans haven't even been willing to accept tax cuts.

Broder's column makes it seem as if President Obama may still be able to get some things done working with serious, well-intentioned Republicans. I'd be more inclined to agree if I could find some serious, well-intentioned Republicans.

Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

A SUDDEN CHANGE OF HEART ON THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY.... As we've been talking about over the last couple of days, President Obama's decision to rescue American auto manufacturers looks awfully good with the benefit of hindsight. Republicans were apoplectic at the time, but more than a year later, we now know the GOP was wrong and the Obama White House was right.

The more amusing angle, however, is watching Republicans scramble to justify their enormous mistake. At a moment of crisis, and with the GOP's credibility on the line, Republicans made the wrong call -- but with a little revisionist history, they're hoping you won't notice.

Early last year, as this clip helps make clear, the GOP saw the bailout of the auto industry as a policy that wouldn't, and quite literally couldn't, work. It was deemed wholly unacceptable for practical reasons (it would waste money and the industry would fail anyway) and for ideological reasons (it was "Marxism" in practice). Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) proclaimed Obama's actions "truly breathtaking" and said the government ownership roles at Chrysler and GM "should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise."

Now that this same policy has been deemed an unqualified success, most Republicans are biting their tongue, embarrassed about having been wrong once again. But some GOP officials are nevertheless still talking -- and taking partial credit for the policy they perceived as the end of American capitalism.

"The ideas [Republicans] laid out there were followed through," Corker told the Washington Post. "I take some pleasure out of helping make that contribution."

Got that? Corker hated the policy last year -- it offended his notion of how the government should operate on a fundamental level -- but now that it worked, and the evidence is clear that Obama was right, he wants the public to think the president succeeded thanks to the Republican "contributions" to the policy.

This is not only a reminder of just how shameless this crowd really is, it's a reminder how fortunate America was that Republicans weren't calling the shots when the pressure was on.

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

EGGING ON THE VIOLENT.... We talked recently about Byron Williams, an anti-government zealot, who loaded up his mother's truck with firearms, put on body armor, and headed to San Francisco two weeks ago with a rampage in mind. He didn't reach his destination -- Williams initiated a shootout with police in Oakland after being pulled over for driving erratically -- but he intended to "start a revolution" with bloodshed at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation.

It's hard to say with certainty how Williams chose his targets, but given his politics -- his mother said he was angry at "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items" -- he very likely heard about the relatively obscure Tides Foundation through Glenn Beck.

The non-profit organization supports "sustainability, better education, solutions to the AIDS epidemic and human rights," but the deranged Fox News personality nevertheless considers Tides as a major cog in some larger conspiracy to destroy capitalism. Beck even boasted that "no one knew what Tides was" until he started scribbling on his chalkboard.

Dana Milbank highlighted Beck's obsession with condemning the Tides Foundation -- including two denunciations the week before Williams loaded up for a murdering rampage -- and the fact that over the last 18 months, other than a couple of Hannity references, Tides' name wasn't uttered in any other news broadcast by any other network.

Beck has at times spoken against violence, but he more often forecasts it, warning that "it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid." Most every broadcast has some violent imagery: "The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America's head. . . . Hold these people responsible."

Beck has prophesied darkly to his millions of followers that we are reaching "a point where the people will have exhausted all their options. When that happens, look out." One night on Fox, discussing the case of a man who killed 10 people, Beck suggested such things were inevitable. "If you're a conservative, you are called a racist, you want to starve children," he said. "And every time they do speak out, they are shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people turn into that guy?"

Here's one idea: Stop encouraging them.

To be clear, Byron Williams is responsible for Byron Williams' crimes, just as every other right-wing lunatic who's turned to violence -- and the list seems to be growing -- is responsible for their own actions.

Beck, however, shouldn't say he has no role here. He's whipping up a confused and easily-misled mob into a rage, lying to them with deranged theories, and pointing them in a direction. The sooner he shows some restraint, and takes some responsibility for dousing a simmering flame with lighter fluid, the safer we'll be.

Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

RAND PAUL STILL SEES THE ROAD TO HITLER.... The AP's David Espo had a good story yesterday, noting the ways in which Rand Paul (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Kentucky, is conflicted. On the one hand, he really wants to tell voters about his sincere-but-radical political beliefs. On the other, Paul, a right-wing ophthalmologist with no background in government or public policy, actually wants to win. He can either honestly share his beliefs and lose, or water his extremism down and stand a reasonably strong chance of winning.

But despite these pressures, Rand Paul often can't help himself. The New York Press reports on the Kentuckian's recent fundraising visit to NYC.

Tonight, when Paul finally strides up and takes the microphone in the front of the room, he seems relaxed and speaks to the crowd in a soft and steady Southern accent. "People say, 'Oh those Tea Party people, they're angry.' I say: 'No, they're concerned and they're worried.' They're worried that we could destroy the currency by adding such a massive debt." Paul then invoked the Nazis: "In Germany it led to Hitler."

In the same soothing country doctor drawl, Paul begins to make the kind of argument that's caused some political commentators to question his sanity. But this time it isn't about liquidating the Federal Reserve, vanquishing the Department of Labor or new limits on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- all topics Paul has argued for in the past. Instead, Paul warns that deficit spending will lead to the same kind of chaos that allowed Hitler to rise to power.

"That can happen in a civilized country," Paul says. He continues on, saying that in order to avoid a similar fate we must stop "spending and spending" and create an alternative future.

Spencer Wilking added that Paul was rewarded with an assembled crowd that "shrieks with delight" in response to such nonsense.

As a substantive matter, Rand Paul is spewing idiocy. Our debt, created by Paul's Republican friends, is not destroying the currency and won't lead to American fascism. The very idea is so blisteringly stupid it's hard to believe anyone arguing this publicly could ever be taken seriously again.

And therein lies the real problem. Paul's Hitler rhetoric is offensive and disturbing, but it's also the kind of rhetoric that would have permanently discredited a Senate candidate up until fairly recently. Such radicalism was simply considered beyond the pale of what's acceptable in the American political mainstream.

Rand Paul, however, remains the frontrunner in Kentucky, no matter how crazy he is.

Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

SO MUCH FOR DIVERSI-TEA.... It appears Tea Partiers are starting to feel a little defensive about charges of bigotry. There's a good reason for that: racism has been common and pervasive within the so-called "movement" since its inception in the wake of last year's middle-class tax cuts.

The prevalence of ugly, racially-divisive rhetoric and tactics came to a head last month with a denunciation from the NAACP, but its roots have been evident for quite a while -- Tea Party rhetoric, placards, billboards, speeches, and initiatives have often been tainted with racism, with varying degrees of subtlety. It's unfair to argue that this is a racist "movement," but it's entirely reasonable to note that it has far too many racist elements.

For Tea Party leaders and organizations, there's a realization that this perception -- shaped entirely by reality -- is starting to take hold, and so it makes sense that the far-right zealots are making a surface-level effort to show their appreciation for diversity. This was evident two weeks ago, for example, when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) hosted an event launching the House Tea Party Caucus, and white male speakers were kept to a minimum.

Yesterday, Tea Partiers took this a step further, hosting a "Uni-Tea" event in Philadelphia, to show the right-wing movement's appreciation for diversity. New Jersey's Jeffrey Weingarten co-organized the event and told TPM the other day that the intention was "to show off the movement's diversity on stage while drawing demographics not usually associated with the tea party into the movement."

So, how'd it go? Evan McMorris-Santoro and Jillian Rayfield were on hand, and noted that the event "appeared to be a borderline disaster" for Tea Partiers hoping to demonstrate "some actual demographic diversity in the movement."

For three hours, a small crowd drifted in and out of Independence Park as speakers and musicians regaled them with paranoia about Democratic politicians and policies and reassurances that no matter what anyone says, there's no racism in the tea party.

Even as just a regular old tea party rally, the event fell flat. Though organizers said the event's website had been visited more than 2 million times in the days leading up to today's rally outside Independence Hall, for most of the afternoon there were fewer than 500 in attendance. It was clear from the large numbers of volunteers and the 1,500 bottles the organizers put on ice that they expected a big crowd to turn out. They did not get it by a long shot.

I've haven't seen Fox News reports on this, but one can assume it will tell viewers that 17 billion people attended the event.

Of the 500 or so attendees, McMorris-Santoro and Jillian Rayfield said fewer than 20 had "non-white faces."

Going into the event, Weingarten said, "I hope people will be surprised." Now that it's done, I think it's fair to say there was nothing surprising about it.

Steve Benen 8:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

ON THE TEEVEE.... We talked on Friday about a curious set of circumstances: Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics controversy is generating considerable attention, while Sen. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) criminal investigation is largely ignored, despite a series of recent developments. It's curious, isn't it?

I had a chance to chat with Chris Hayes about this on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Friday night. Here's the segment:

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

A few things to note. First, none of you will be able to make fun of the fake-book backdrop this time. So there.

Second, I don't look quite this pale in real life, but between the lighting and the makeup, I'm afraid I looked like I was ready for an episode of "True Blood." Reports of my vampirism have been greatly exaggerated.

Third, saying "IOKIYAR" out loud on the air turns out to be slightly more difficult than I anticipated.

And fourth, I mistakenly referred to Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) "recently" having been caught with prostitutes. That's incorrect -- what I meant to say was in "recent years," but I misspoke.

Steve Benen 7:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share
 




 

 
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly


Place Your Link Here

--- Links ---

Addiction Treatment Centers

Alcohol Treatment Center

Loans

Long Distance Moving Companies

FREE Phone Card

Flowers

Personal Loan

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs