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

November 30, 2010

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

* Just a reminder, the Monthly's annual pledge drive is underway. We sincerely appreciate those of you who've already shown generous support, and hope other readers will take a moment to help out.

* European debt crisis: "Fears among European bondholders spread Tuesday from the weakest members of the euro zone to other countries, including Italy and Belgium, spurring a stepped-up search for a solution to a crisis that is increasingly putting political as well as financial strain on Europe's decade-old monetary union."

* It's pretty much impossible to feel optimistic about the global climate talks underway this week in Cancun.

* This almost certainly won't work, but I give Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) credit for trying: "Senate Democratic leaders will try to push through a one-year extension of federal unemployment benefits sometime Tuesday, although they are still expected to lapse at the end of the day, sources told The Hill."

* Comcast inadvertently helps make the case for net neutrality, as Senate Democrats push the FCC to act.

* It's good to see a boost in U.S. consumer confidence.

* Republicans and health insurance companies made all kinds of dire predictions about Medicare Advantage earlier this year. Republicans and health insurance companies were wrong.

* Did Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggest New START might yet get a vote during the lame-duck session? It sounded like it.

* Fred Kaplan argues that the revelations from the WikiLeaks documents actually make the Obama administration's foreign policy efforts look pretty good.

* Good: "An Oklahoma constitutional amendment aimed at stopping the use of Islamic law in its courts was dealt a serious blow on Monday when a federal judge temporarily blocked the state from putting it into effect."

* Pigford II is on its way to the president's desk. It's about time.

* The DNC's Organizing for America actually encouraged its members to write letter in support of a pay freeze for federal workers. I have no idea what the OFA is thinking.

* I'm starting to think Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is pretty racist.

* Idiotic conservatives will probably learn one of these days that CNN's Anderson Cooper isn't afraid to ask good questions on the air.

* Classes at community colleges aren't as open as they used to be.

* Adam Serwer flags a gem from a special operations soldier, quoted in the Pentagon's DADT report: "We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay." Republicans think we'd be safer if the military kicked that guy out. I continue to think that's insane.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

IF ONLY THE RIGHT HAD A STRONGER AVERSION TO DISENFRANCHISEMENT.... Generally, when we talk about the right and varying degrees of support for voter disenfranchisement, we're dealing with sleazy tactics like voter caging. But once in a while, conservatives have a more historical perspective in mind.

Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for example, has raised objections to the Voting Rights Act. Colorado's Tom Tancredo has suggested literacy tests for voters have merit. And this month, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips went back even further when talking about Americans' voting rights.

He explained that the founders of the country originally put "certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote." He continued, "One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."

There was no evidence to suggest he was kidding.

In the 18th century, American law limited voting rights to white men who owned property, perhaps assuming that attitudes like those of Judson Phillips were appropriate. But to hear someone in the 21st century suggesting disenfranchisement for people who rent their homes is more than a little jarring.

In the larger contemporary context, it's worth noting that a wide variety of far-right zealots, especially those who identify with the so-called Tea Party "movement," seriously believe that we've strayed from our constitutional origins, and need to turn back the clock, eliminating nearly all of the modern structure of the federal government and our legal ecosystem.

With Phillips' comments in mind, Jon Chait added, "The emergence of 'Constitutional conservatism' as a new aspect of right-wing thought is about nine-parts empty slogan and one-part actual idea. When you look at the actual idea, it's fairly scary. Conservatives are correct that the country has changed its original understanding of the Constitution. Those changes have primarily involved making the country more democratic -- we now get to elect Senators, a privilege many conservatives would like to remove. Another change is that the franchise is no longer restricted to white, male property owners."

That shouldn't even be considered noteworthy anymore, and yet, here's a prominent Tea Party leader, suggesting that the founding fathers had the right idea, and that only those wealthy enough to own property "actually have a vested stake in the community."

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

Bookmark and Share

WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.... It's not exactly a secret that congressional Republicans and the Obama White House have a difference of opinion when it comes to tax policy. By GOP design, Bush-era tax rates are set to expire -- the president wants to keep the breaks for the middle class; Republicans want to protect breaks for the wealthy.

With the GOP holding middle-class cuts hostage, there's an impasse. Obama doesn't want to sign the Republican plan, and Republicans won't let the Senate vote on the Democratic plan.

Hoping to find some kind of common ground, the president today assigned Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House Budget Director Jacob Lew to oversee a working group, talking with four members of Congress -- one from each party in each chamber -- to try to, as Obama put it, "break through this logjam."

If we're laying odds, it's probably safe to assume the working group won't make any progress. Greg Sargent talked to a senior Republican aide who shared some details on this morning's discussion at the White House.

On the Bush tax cuts, Boehner agreed to a proposal from the President to create a working group to negotiate over the continuing standoff over how to proceed. [...]

But the GOP aide says that in the meeting, Boehner made it clear to the President and Dems that he "believes this is no substitute for immediate action to cut spending and stop the coming tax hikes -- for all taxpayers."

Does anyone seriously believe Boehner is prepared to approach this working group with an open mind, and with an eye towards reaching a compromise? He knows what he wants, and he'll accept nothing short of everything.

The same aide note that the president, talking about the nation's fiscal challenges, urged GOP leaders to think about the problems in terms of short-term, medium-turn, and long-term problems. Republicans rejected the formulation, insisting that these issues must be addressed "right away."

Anyone looking ahead with any modicum of optimism probably isn't paying close enough attention.

Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

GATES TO CONGRESS: TIME TO REPEAL DADT.... Thanks to a series of strategic leaks, we already had a very good sense that the Pentagon's troop survey on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" contained good news. But there were some lingering questions about exactly how encouraging the results would be, and how strong the repeal endorsement would be from military leaders.

By most standards, the news this afternoon is even better than expected.

The Pentagon's long-awaited report on gays in the military concludes that repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law would present only a low risk to the armed forces' ability to carry out their missions and that 70 percent of service members believe it would have little or no effect on their units.

The conclusions published in Tuesday's report give a boost to President Obama and Congressional Democrats seeking to eliminate the ban before the end of the year and undercut the arguments of social conservatives and lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who believe ending the law would harm the military as it conducts two wars.

"The risk of repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to overall military effectiveness is low," said the report's co-authors, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham. While ending the ban would likely bring about "limited and isolated disruption" to unit cohesion and retention, "we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting," they said.

Nearly seven in ten U.S. troops said they served alongside someone in their unit who they believed to be gay or lesbian, and 92% of these servicemen and women said their unit's ability to work together was fine. What's more, 89% of Army combat units and 84% of Marine combat units saying they had good or neutral experiences working with gays and lesbians.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, after noting the non-existent risk to military readiness, "strongly" urged the Senate to pass the pending legislation "before the end of this year." He added that repeal "would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that many have feared and predicted."

Commenting on the Pentagon report, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added, "We treat people with dignity and respect in the armed forces, or we don't last long in the armed forces: No special cases, no special treatment."

Igor Volsky has more, including a variety of related highlights from the survey findings. The entire report has been published online here.

As for the larger legislative context, remember, Senate Republicans recently refused to even allow a debate on funding U.S. troops because they wanted to wait for this report. They took a gamble, of sorts -- maybe the survey results would show servicemen and women agreeing with the GOP's anti-gay animus, thus giving the party a boost fighting pro-repeal Democrats.

The gamble failed. We now know a majority of U.S. troops, a majority of U.S. civilians, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs are all ready to see DADT repeal move forward.

If John McCain and other anti-gay senators hoped to gain some leverage, those hopes were in vain. They've run out of excuses. It's time for the Senate to do the right and decent thing.

Remember, Democrats only need two Republicans -- literally, just two -- to break ranks. These GOP senators, if they exist, don't even have to vote for the spending bill that includes the DADT provision; they just need to let the Senate vote up or own. If this report doesn't lead two Republicans to drop the nonsense, nothing will.

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who remains an influential figure in Republican politics, chatted with a far-right news website yesterday, and characterized newly-elected conservatives hoping to shut down the government next year "a little naive."

"First of all, you can't shut down the government. There are public safety, national security issues, that override a well-intended point, I'm sure, that government is way too big. Better to have a plan on how you reduce the debt by reducing the deficit."

Jeb isn't the only one making comments like these. Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) recently said shutting down the government would be "a mistake," adding, "Nobody really wants that." Similarly, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was recently asked if we're likely to see a replay of 1995. "No. I don't think the country needs or wants a shutdown," Cantor said. He added that when it comes to pursuing their agenda, Republicans "have to be careful" or they'll be "seen as a bunch of yahoos."

What I like about this is the notion of prominent conservative Republicans characterizing a shutdown as unreasonable and extreme. With upcoming votes on the debt limit and the federal budget, and clamoring among GOP extremists to force a shutdown, public remarks that position a shutdown as beyond the pale help create an incentive for Republicans to avoid one.

And at this point, if GOP leaders hope to avoid a Gingrich replay, they're going to have to overcome some pretty intense conservative pressure -- from hard-liners inside Congress and out -- from rabid right-wing ideologues who've been told the party shouldn't compromise on anything with anyone.

With this in mind, keep Jeb Bush's quote handy.

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S REALLY NOT THAT COMPLICATED.... At midnight, 2.5 million unemployed Americans will lose their benefits -- the first time in generations that jobless aid has expired with the unemployment rate this high. Democrats in Congress and the White House support an extension, but don't have the votes to pass one.

And as awful as this is for the struggling families who rely on these benefits, the expiration of the aid undermines the larger economy at the same time. On MSNBC this morning, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) captured Republican confusion on this, in response to questions from Mike Barnicle.

BARNICLE: What about the fact that unemployment benefits pumped into the economy are an immediate benefit to the economy? Immediate...

SHADEGG: No, they're not! Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn't know that.

BARNICLE: Unemployed people spend money Congressman, 'cause they have no money.

SHADEGG: Aha! So your answer is it's the spending of money that drives the economy and I don't think that's right. It's the creation of jobs that drives the economy.... Job creators create jobs.

Watching the video of the exchange, I'm inclined to believe Shadegg actually believed what he was saying. With that in mind, I have no interest in questioning his sincerity.

It's his intelligence I have a problem with. This really isn't complicated -- when the unemployed get a check, they spend it. When it comes to getting a strong bang for the buck, jobless benefits have proven to be one of the best economic stimuli in policymakers' tool-belt.

Shadegg believes job creation boosts the economy, but there's a little detail he's struggling with: businesses need customers. When 2.5 million people stop spending, businesses lose customers, which in turn makes them less likely to hire employees.

The data on this is incontrovertible. If Republicans want what's best for the economy, why can't they think this through?

Also note the larger, Dickensian context -- Republicans are fighting tooth and nail for $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, but they're poised to kill extended unemployment benefits for those struggling to find work in a weak economy, at a fraction of the cost.

Raising taxes on the rich under these circumstances is considered madness. Leaving jobless Americans with no benefits and no buying power under these circumstances is considered responsible.

This isn't a surprise, of course. Republicans have repeatedly argued throughout the recession that those struggling to find work in the midst of a jobs crisis are lazy and quite possibly drug addicts. Of course they're prepared to screw over the people most in need of assistance; they just don't like the unemployed.

But as the recovery continues to struggle, Republican opposition to jobless aid only guarantees more struggling, weaker economic activity, and more poverty. It's an easily-preventable disaster, which GOP officials in Congress are willing to just watch unfold.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (54)

Bookmark and Share

SENATE BAN ON EARMARKS FALLS FAR SHORT.... Some conservative Republicans were already able to convince the Senate GOP caucus to support a self-imposed moratorium on earmarks, but the intra-party measure is non-binding and doesn't carry the force of law. This morning, they took the next step, pushing a proposal to ban earmarks altogether.

The Senate considered a similar measure in March, and it failed with only 29 votes. This morning, the proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) garnered far more support, but still fell far short, 39 to 56.

The vote did not fall along party lines. Eight Republicans -- Bennett, Cochran, Collins, Inhofe, Murkowski, Shelby, Lugar, and Voinovich -- broke ranks and opposed the measure. A closer look at this list reveals that two of the eight are retiring from the chamber, while the other six are members of the Appropriations Committee, which just happens to be responsible for handing out earmarks. Meanwhile, seven Democrats -- Bayh, Feingold, McCaskill, Bennet, Bill Nelson, Udall, and Warner -- voted for Coburn's measure.

But for the real entertainment, take a look at who voted against the earmark ban in March, only to turn around and vote for it this morning. Dave Weigel flags the highest profile example.

In March, an earmark moratorium went down 68-29, and [Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe] voted against it. Today the moratorium failed by a 56-39 vote, and Snowe was among the Republicans who switched her vote to [support a moratorium].

What changed? Bob Bennett, Mike Castle, and Lisa Murkowski lost Republican primaries. Tea Partiers have made it crystal clear that they're going to challenge Snowe in 2012, with a resurgent Republican electorate in that state clearly ready for the fight. This, again, is the real impact of the Tea Party movement. Whether it costs Republicans a seat or two is almost irrelevant. Its ability to force discipline and demand ideological concessions from Republicans is uncanny.

The same, by the way, can be said of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) of Texas, who also switched positions, and who appears likely to face a primary challenger in 2012.

Tea Party zealots may be lacking in a lot of areas -- no clear agenda, no leadership, no internal structure, and no real areas of expertise -- but they've successfully scared the hell out of plenty of GOP lawmakers.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Alaska's still-unresolved U.S. Senate race, Joe Miller (R) tried to get a state judge to move his court case to his adopted hometown of Fairbanks. The judge refused, and the case will be heard in Juneau.

* Former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), meanwhile, is urging Miller to give up. "I think that race is over," Coleman said. "I think the counting's been done." Given that Coleman kept his post-election fight going for eight months, he may be lacking some credibility on the issue.

* In the recount in Minnesota's gubernatorial race, Mark Dayton (D) said he gained 88 votes on the first day of the hand recount, while Tom Emmer (R) gained 51 votes. Dayton entered the recount with a lead of 8,770 votes out of about 2.1 million total ballots cast.

* Roll Call reported this morning that Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is likely to accept the job of chairing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the next cycle. Party leaders have had more than a little trouble finding someone to take the job.

* Yet another Republican has kicked off a campaign to be the next RNC Chair: Ann Wagner, a former leader of the Missouri Republican Party, declared her intentions yesterday. Assuming Michael Steele seeks a second term, he'll have plenty of competition.

* Sarah Palin's political action committee raised a surprisingly-strong $469,000 between Oct. 13 and Nov. 22, bringing her total for the cycle to just under $4.5 million.

* In light of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-Texas) failed gubernatorial campaign earlier this year, right-wing activists have vowed to find an even-more-conservative candidate to take her on in a GOP primary in 2012. Hutchison has not yet said whether she'll seek another term.

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

Bookmark and Share

THE ANNUAL PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... This is Day Two of the Monthly's annual fundraising drive. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who contributed yesterday, and for those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog.

Also, this year, the publishers are adding a little additional incentive.

So give generously -- $25, $50, $100 -- and if you donate $150 or more, we'll send you a hardcover copy of Monthly founder Charles Peters' latest book, Lyndon B. Johnson, individually signed by the author. It's the latest in "The American Presidents" series. The New Yorker says it is "illuminating" and "a resonant portrait of a man of prodigious political abilities, who was driven, but ultimately undone, by his temperamental flaws."

While we already have print and online ads, this only covers part of our overall expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming.

So, I hope we can count on your support. Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share

SENATE PASSES FOOD-SAFETY BILL.... The House easily passed an important overhaul of the nation's food safety safeguards over a year ago, before moving to the Senate, where it had six principal co-sponsors -- three Democrats and three Republicans. It appeared to be a no-brainer, especially after the nation saw at least 1,300 salmonella-related illnesses spanning 22 states over the summer.

But the Senate is the Senate, and a handful of far-right Republicans blocked action on the bill for months. Today, their efforts came to an end -- the good guys won one for a change.

The Senate on Tuesday passed a sweeping overhaul of the nation's food-safety system, after recalls of tainted eggs, peanut butter and spinach sickened thousands and led major food makers to join consumer advocates in demanding stronger government oversight.

The legislation, which passed by a vote of 73 to 25, would greatly strengthen the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that in recent decades focused more on policing medical products than ensuring the safety of foods. The bill is intended to get the government to crack down on unsafe foods before they harm people rather than after outbreaks occur.

The legislation isn't perfect, and doesn't go as far as it should, but the bill does grant the FDA new powers to "recall tainted foods, increase inspections, demand accountability from food companies and oversee farming."

Erik Olson, deputy director of the Pew Health Group, declared, "This is an historic moment. For the first time in over 70 years, the Senate has approved an overhaul of F.D.A.'s food safety law that will help ensure that the food we put on our kitchen tables will be safer."

For those of us who eat food, that's good news.

There is, however, one additional legislative problem: the House and Senate passed slightly different versions, and there's no time for a conference committee in the lame-duck session. Look for the House, which passed the superior version, to just swallow hard and approve the Senate bill as-is, sending it to the White House for the president's signature.

For all the Senate version's flaws, it's a big, overdue step in the right direction.

Part of the problem is the growing industrialization and globalization of the nation's food supply. Nearly a fifth of the nation's food supply and as much as three-quarters of its seafood are imported, but the F.D.A. inspects less than one pound in a million of such imported foods. The bill gives the F.D.A. more control over food imports, including increased inspection of foreign processing plants and the ability to set standards for how fruits and vegetables are grown abroad.

And as food suppliers grow in size, problems at one facility can sicken thousands all over the country. The Peanut Corporation of America's contaminated paste was included in scores of cookies and snacks made by big and small companies. The legislation would raise standards at such plants by demanding that food companies write plans to manufacture foods safely and conduct routine tests to ensure that the plans are adequate.

The bill would give the F.D.A. the power to demand food recalls.... The legislation greatly increases the number of inspections the F.D.A. must conduct of food processing plants, with an emphasis on foods that are considered most high risk -- although figuring out which ones are riskiest is an uncertain science.


Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

SITTING DOWN WITH THE CRAZIES.... It's not unusual for congressional offices, especially those in the leadership, to chat with all kinds of interest groups and community leaders. It's not necessarily evidence of an endorsement when staffers for Rep. Smith has a meeting with representatives of Americans for America.

Having said that, one would like to hope that the incoming Speaker would keep dangerous radicals at arm's length. He's not.

It is no secret that Randall Terry is an attention-seeking right-wing zealot, always on the lookout for ways to get his name in the press.

From burning effigies of Nancy Pelosi or Lindsey Graham to destroying Korans and protesting outside the school attended by President Obama's daughters, Terry is constantly working to draw attention to his cause ... mainly as a means to draw attention to himself.

And all of that self-aggrandizement occasionally pays of, as it helps Terry to secure meetings with incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner's Chief of Staff....

Terry released a photo of the meeting, and then emailed his supporters, explaining that the anti-abortion extremist demanded that Boehner end all abortion rights in the country. "We Must Play Hard Ball," his email read. "They Must Fear Pro-Lifers!"

Terry has been around for a while, and his extremism has largely kept him from the Republican mainstream. Tanya Somanader also noted some of his recent antics:

During the health care reform debate, he was nearly arrested outside a Tennessee federal courthouse for stabbing baby dolls. During Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation, Terry launched a "defeat Sotomayor" roadshow with fliers dubbing her the "Angel of Death." Turning on Democratic leadership, he also launched a contest "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid BURN IN HELL!" video contest complete with demonstration. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also earned an effigy burning tour for voting to confirm Justice Elena Kagan.

Not satisfied with just focusing on politicians, Terry targeted President Obama's children by touting aborted baby pictures outside their school. He even blamed Dr. George Tiller -- a Kansas doctor murdered for administering abortions -- for his own death.

Again, I realize Boehner's office didn't endorse Terry's madness, but when an incoming House Speaker takes the time to meet in private with an extremist like this, it's unsettling. I'm trying to imagine a comparable situation -- it's surprisingly difficult to come up with comparable liberal radicals -- but I suppose one might wonder what the Republican/Fox News reaction would be if Speaker Pelosi's chief of staff chatted with the leadership of Earth First. I suspect it'd be a politically significant story worthy of quite a bit of complaints and attention.

If Boehner's office could simply acknowledge that the discussion with Terry was just a courtesy, and that the incoming Speaker has no tolerance for Terry's brand of extremism, I'm sure many of us would feel a bit better.

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

Bookmark and Share

U.S. TROOPS COMFORTABLE WITH DADT REPEAL.... It's a little anti-climactic, since previous leaks to the media had hinted at the survey results, but the AP reports this morning that the new report from the Defense Department will show American servicemen and women comfortable with the end of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The Pentagon study that argues that gay troops could serve openly without hurting the military's ability to fight is expected to re-ignite debate this month on Capitol Hill over repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Officials familiar with the 10-month study's results have said a clear majority of respondents don't care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings hadn't been released.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who have both said they support repealing the law, were scheduled to discuss the findings with Congress Tuesday morning and with reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Of course, this is just a top-line summary of the report, and the details, which will be fleshed out during Senate Armed Services Committee hearings later this week, will make all the difference.

Still, a variety of Senate Republicans insisted for months they couldn't even allow a vote on this until they heard from U.S. troops that they're comfortable with ending the existing policy. As of this morning, this final GOP excuse appears to have been eliminated.

Democrats only need two Republicans -- literally, just two -- to break ranks. These GOP senators, if they exist, don't even have to vote for the spending bill that includes the DADT provision; they just need to let the Senate vote up or own.

If they were waiting for the Pentagon's report, the wait is over. Whether there are two decent Senate Republicans willing to let the chamber vote remains to be seen, but as of today, they no longer have any excuses.

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

Bookmark and Share

DEFICIT, SCHMEFICIT, CONT'D.... The AP has a fairly detailed report this morning on the results of a new Associated Press-CNBC Poll purporting to show "widespread anxiety" about the federal budget deficit. Not surprisingly, the results of the survey suggest the public isn't sure how best to solve the problem -- folks seem to prefer spending cuts to tax increases, but balk at the idea of touching Social Security and Medicare.

One poll respondent told the AP, "I'm sure there's waste somewhere." Yeah, that's helpful.

For 16 paragraphs, the AP's report goes on and on about public attitudes on how best to close the budget shortfall, who should feel the burden, and the risk the deficit poses to future generations. Way down in the 17th paragraph, though, we get to the part that matters.

Even so, the public is not bristling to tackle the deficit. Of seven issues tested, the deficit was even with taxes as fifth most mentioned, well behind the economy.

Right. For all the talk about how to reduce the deficit, and commissions working out plans to reduce the deficit, and removing capital from the economy in order to reduce the deficit, there's one nagging detail: Americans want a stronger economy, and aren't all that concerned about reducing the deficit right now.

We keep seeing this same result. A recent CBS News poll asked Americans what they'd like to see Congress focus on next year. The results weren't close -- a 56% majority cited "economy/jobs" as the top issue. Health care was a distant second at 14%, while tackling the deficit/debt was a very distant third at 4%. A week later, Gallup found a combined 64% of the country cited "economy/jobs" as the top issue in the country, while the deficit was a distant fifth at 9%. The AP's poll is in line with the others.

The political world, in other words, continues to have the wrong conversation. Policymakers want to take steps that reduce the deficit, at the expense of the economy, despite the fact that the vast majority of the country seems to think that's backwards.

Emboldened Republicans, in particular, seem to be operating in some sort of bizarro world, putting deficit reduction at the top of their list of priorities -- except when they do the opposite, pushing for trillions of dollars in tax cuts -- even if it undermines the health of the economy. (That the deficit is largely the result of Republicans' own policies appears to be an ironic detail that they'd prefer we not mention.)

And just as an aside, also note that the same AP-CNBC poll asked the public about tax policy. It found 50% of Americans support extending Bush-era rates only for those earning under $250,000 a year, and an additional 14% who want all Bush-era rates to expire on schedule. Only a third supports the Republican plan.

With these numbers in mind, Democrats have public backing, but seem to be acting as if they don't, while Republicans have the unpopular position, while pretending the opposite.

Sigh.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

OBAMA, CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS TO GATHER FOR FACE-TO-FACE CHAT.... The original plan was for President Obama to host a longer, friendlier gathering at the White House with congressional leaders two weeks ago. Republicans balked, announced they were too busy, and postponed.

And with that constructive foundation already in place, they'll try again today, with the president hosting a meeting -- scheduled to last between 60 and 90 minutes -- with the top two members of both parties from both chambers. There's no set agenda for the get-together, and under the circumstances, everyone involved seems to agree on one thing: keep expectations low.

Obama has said he hopes to use the discussion to at least make some progress on New START ratification and tax policy, but by all appearances, GOP leaders aren't interested in cooperating with the White House at all, on anything other than their own agenda.

Indeed, to help set a certain tone going into the discussion, Speaker-to-be John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have an op-ed in today's Washington Post, presenting their perspective. The piece doesn't exactly send a seriousness-of-purpose message.

Republicans got the message voters have been delivering for more than a year. That's why we made a pledge to America to cut spending, rein in government, and permanently extend the current tax rates so small-business owners won't get hit with a massive tax hike at the end of December. That's what Americans want. And that's the message Republicans will bring to the meeting today. In other words, you'll have a voice at that table.

We can work together and accomplish these things, but the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress first will have to prioritize. It's time to choose struggling middle-class families and small businesses over the demands of the liberal base. It's time to get serious.

I'm still not sure if GOP leaders believe their own nonsense, but Boehner and McConnell seriously seem to believe the economy will improve, and middle-class families will benefit, if they take money out of the economy, undercut consumers' buying power, kill effective jobs programs, eliminate stimulative benefits, and keep Bush's failed tax policy in place. They also seem to seriously believe repeatedly debunked arguments about small businesses and taxes -- suggesting Boehner and McConnell are either illiterate, allergic to facts, or deliberately lying.

Their op-ed is a laundry list of ridiculous partisan garbage culminating in this conclusion:

If President Obama and Democratic leaders put forward a plan during the lame-duck session to cut spending and stop the tax hikes on all Americans, they can count on a positive response from Republicans. If the president and Democratic leaders don't act before the end of the year, however, House and Senate Republicans will work to get the job done in the new Congress. But we hope it doesn't come to that.

The voters want us to show that we heard them, and Republicans are ready to work with anyone who is willing to do just that.

Or to translate to English, "Give Republicans everything they want, and they'll be happy to cooperate." This is bound to help produce a constructive conversation this morning, right?

These guys really do think the public loves the GOP and embraces a far-right policy agenda, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. They're convinced they have a mandate, blissfully unaware of their own unpopularity.

The meeting, which should begin at 10:30 a.m., will be private, though participants will reportedly talk to the media afterwards.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 29, 2010

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

* Just a reminder, the Monthly's annual pledge drive began today. We sincerely appreciate those of you who've already shown generous support, and hope other readers will take a moment to help out.

* Crisis on the Korean peninsula: "On the heels of South Korea's threat to force the North to 'pay a dear price for further aggression,' the country's military appeared to step back from its confrontational stance and canceled live-fire artillery drills on an island in the Yellow Sea attacked by North Korea a week ago. Still, high-profile joint exercises between the South and the United States are under way within 125 miles of the island, a show of force meant to warn North Korea but that has drawn warnings from both the North and China."

* On a related note: "With its brazen daytime artillery barrage of a civilian-inhabited island, North Korea's reclusive leaders might have achieved one thing that had so far eluded South Korea's president, Lee Myung-bak: uniting the South Korean public around a more aggressive policy toward the North."

* Tragedy in Afghanistan: "An Afghan border policeman killed six American servicemen during a training mission Monday, underscoring one of the risks in a U.S.-led program to educate enough recruits to turn over the lead for security to Afghan forces by 2014. The shooting in a remote area near the Pakistani border appeared to be the deadliest attack of its kind in at least two years." (thanks to R.P. for the tip)

* Tehran: "Motorcyclists attached bombs to cars carrying two of the country's top nuclear scientists early Monday, detonating them from afar. One scientist was killed and the other injured."

* The WikiLeaks fallout and a setback in America's diplomatic strength: "Diplomats and government officials around the world lamented the massive leak of U.S. diplomatic cables Monday and many predicted it would undercut their ability to deal with the United States on sensitive issues."

* On a related note, Anne Applebaum argues persuasively that the WikiLeaks document dump will end up creating more secrecy, not less.

* Iraqi refugees returned to their country in recent years as it grew more stable. Now, they're leaving again.

* The U.S. war in Afghanistan is now longer than the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan.

* Somehow, Brian Beutler managed to convince Josh to give him his own TPM-branded blog. Congrats to Brian, whose talent and hard work clearly warrants such an honor, but who nevertheless probably needs a haircut.

* The wound isn't yet healed, but go ahead and read Jeffrey Toobin's fantastic piece on the Supreme Court's tragic Bush v. Gore ruling.

* The DREAM Act deserves to pass. It probably won't.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

BROACHING THE INVIOLABLE MOTIVATIONS LINE.... E.J. Dionne Jr. considers Senate Republicans' tactics on blocking ratification of the pending arms treaty, New START, and concludes that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and his cohorts are "playing Russian roulette with our nation's interests."

If this treaty is not ratified, the only winner will be Vladimir Putin. Is Kyl, who on "Meet the Press" Sunday reiterated his desire to delay consideration of the treaty, really willing to risk giving Putin and anti-American forces in Russia a leg up?

You don't have to believe me on this. As [neoconservative interventionist Robert Kagan] wrote this month in The Post, defeat of the treaty will "strengthen Vladimir Putin," who would use its demise "to stir more anti-Western nationalism, further weakening an already weak [President Dmitry] Medvedev and anyone else who stands for a more pro-Western approach." It's not my habit to agree with [Pat Buchanan], but he's right in saying: "Killing the treaty would morally disarm those Russians who see their future with the West."

And the Financial Times, hardly a left-wing newspaper, noted that Kyl's core arguments against the treaty are "so weak as to call into question Mr. Kyl's good faith." We don't need more time to consider it; the treaty has been debated for months. And the Obama administration has made a slew of concessions to Kyl to modernize our nuclear program. What, besides the identity of our current president, justifies this obstruction?

I can appreciate why it's unusual, if not downright reprehensible in some circles, to question politicians' motives. It's the inviolable line -- everyone is expected to be patriots acting in good faith, with sincere disagreements over the merits of competing policies. Without clear evidence of malicious intentions, motivations are supposed to be largely off limits in the civil discourse, especially when it comes to Republicans.

The problem with the GOP lately is that even those inclined to give the party the benefit of the doubt simply can't come up with a good-faith explanation for their actions -- which leads to awkward questions about whether they'd actually put their partisan goals ahead of the national interest. It's almost a modified, political version of Occam's Razor -- if one can't come up with a reasonable explanation for a party's actions on policy grounds, it necessarily makes questions about motivations plausible.

Dionne isn't the only one wondering about this. Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, can't figure out why his own party would be acting this way, leading him to assume Republican senators are putting "the desire for the president not to have a foreign policy victory" ahead of the nation's security interests.

AEI's Norm Ornstein, marveling at GOP's misconduct, said, "I cannot fathom why they are doing what they are doing." The Washington Post Dana Milbank noted last week that Republicans appear to be "trying to weaken Americans' security," concluding, "To borrow Bush's phrase, are Republicans not interested in the security of the American people?" Paul Krugman argued that the GOP is blocking ratification "not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it's an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it."

If Republicans care about squelching questions about their intentions, they should probably come up with at least mildly coherent talking points. Or they could drop the nonsense and endorse ratification, but that appears highly unlikely.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

CHENEY'S UNDERSTANDING OF 'GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS'.... As it turns out, Liz Cheney's grasp of economic policy is even worse than her understanding of foreign policy, a feat I hardly considered possible.

The right-wing activist and former State Department official appeared on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, and insisted that the scheduled expiration of Bush-era tax rates would be awful for "small businesses." This is a popular lie, but the frequency with which it's repeated does not improve its accuracy. In Grown-Up Land, the argument has been debunked so often, one can only assume those who still repeat are deliberately trying to deceive the public.

But Cheney went on to say something even more interesting.

"What we've learned over the last 19, 20 months now of the Obama administration is that you cannot grow this economy, you can't stimulate the economy through government handouts. You've got to do it through the private sector."

Now, this is dumb on a variety of levels. Right off the bat, note that the Obama administration's Recovery Act did "grow" and "stimulate" the economy. The evidence is no longer open to debate.

Also note, dismissing public investments as "government handouts" is not only offensive, it's absurd. Cheney never got around to defining the term -- when the Bush/Cheney administration directed lucrative no-bid contracts to her dad's former corporation, do they count as "government handouts," too? -- but the fact remains some of the single most effective areas of economic stimulus have come in the form of direct aid to struggling individuals. Again, the evidence is so overwhelming, the point is incontrovertible.

One of the least effective ways to boost the economy is, incidentally, tax cuts for the wealthy.

And finally, Cheney insists that it's imperative to grow the economy "through the private sector," but what she may not realize is that this is already what's been going on. Since the Recovery Act helped end the recession, corporate profits have soared, and the private sector is where nearly all of the new jobs are being created.

So to summarize, Liz Cheney made a variety of claims, all of which are demonstrably false.

This will have no bearing whatsoever on her being invited back onto the television talk shows, because that's just not how our political discourse works.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE DEMS POISED TO VOTE ON MIDDLE-CLASS-FIRST TAX PLAN?.... It's hard to guess exactly how the tax-policy debate will unfold in the coming weeks, since wary Democrats are still arguing and negotiating with themselves. Everything from sticking to the original plan to wholesale capitulation appears to be on the table.

This afternoon, however, Brian Beutler reports that House Dems are moving towards a vote on what I call the middle-class-first tax policy, first pushed by then-candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

House Democrats are likely to hold a vote later this week on a tax plan that would allow the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners to expire at the end of the year, according to multiple aides.

Nothing's final, and the timing could change, as it often does. But Dem leaders will attempt to settle on a date at a private meeting on the Hill tonight.

Keep in mind, there's still a great deal of uncertainty about Dems' tax cut strategy. Through last week's congressional recess, neither House nor Senate Dem leaders had the votes to pass a plan like this, and leaders in both chambers were signaling pretty clearly that the coming vote will be both a symbolic political statement about GOP priorities, and a starting point for a negotiated compromise with Republicans and conservative members of their own party.

It's worth noting exactly what this plan entails. It's exactly the policy thought to be the Democratic plan all along: families making up to $250,000 would see a permanent reduction in their income tax rates. Everyone above that threshold would still get a tax cut, but on income above a quarter-million, they'd return to Clinton-era tax rates. It's also the approach polls suggest is pretty popular with the electorate.

I'm still shaking my head, by the way, on the fact that House Dems chose not to hold this vote before the midterm election.

And just for context, also note that Senate Dems are increasingly fond of a similar plan, but it would draw the line at $1 million, instead of $250,000, at a cost to the government of an additional $400 billion over the next decade.

Of course, if the House does vote on the middle-class-first policy, it's not clear if there will be enough votes to pass it, and if the leadership manages to cobble together 218 votes, Senate support for this approach is tepid, at best. At a minimum, though, it would lay down a marker, and set a benchmark for additional cross-party, cross-chamber talks.

Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

THE OFFENSIVE, MIND-NUMBING DEBATE OVER 'AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM'.... Karen Tumulty reports today on one of the Republicans' favorite attack lines targeting President Obama.

"American exceptionalism" is a phrase that, until recently, was rarely heard outside the confines of think tanks, opinion journals and university history departments.

But with Republicans and tea party activists accusing President Obama and the Democrats of turning the country toward socialism, the idea that the United States is inherently superior to the world's other nations has become the battle cry from a new front in the ongoing culture wars. Lately, it seems to be on the lips of just about every Republican who is giving any thought to running for president in 2012.

That's not an exaggeration. Tumulty notes examples of GOP rhetoric on "exceptionalism" from Romney, Pence, Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Santorum, and I've heard related rhetoric from like-minded Republican voices such as Liz Cheney.

The idea is pretty straightforward: those who accept American exceptionalism believe that the United States has a special and irreplaceable role in the world, quite possibly as a result of supernatural intervention, that gives us a unique character and identity.

For the right, those who resist the nationalistic impulse are failing to celebrate the greatness of the country. And with this in mind, the right appears to have a special fondness for a press conference President Obama participated in a year and a half ago in Strasbourg, France.

Obama was asked by Financial Times correspondent Ed Luce whether he subscribes, as his predecessors did, "to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world." The president responded, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

For conservatives, unconcerned with context, the response was evidence that Obama fails to see America as truly unique.

What they invariably ignore is the rest of Obama's response to the question.

Here's the portion of the president's answer conservatives pretend doesn't exist:

"I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

"And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

"Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

"And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

This context matters, which is why the president's right-wing detractors tend to ignore it. To see the actual, larger response, it becomes clear that Obama appreciates a special role for the U.S. in history and in world affairs, but doesn't see that as a barrier towards international cooperation.

But if we skip right past the rhetoric and petty swipes, we get to the point of these kinds of attacks. As Greg Sargent explained, "[T]he right intends this attack line as a proxy for their real argument: That Obama is not one of us.... [R]eally, the right doesn't intend this as a debate over what Obama really believes. Rather, it's part and parcel of a larger effort to advance an argument about Obama's cultural roots and identity."

There's an unhealthy ugliness to the right's presidential attacks, and this only helps underscore the malice. For the unhinged right, we have those who question the president's birthplace and faith. For the "respectable" right, we have those who obsess over the president's commitment to "exceptionalism."

They are, however, related angles to the same odious strain.

Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share

THE STATE OF PLAY FOR DADT REPEAL.... Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the leading anti-gay opponent of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," appeared on CNN yesterday to insist that the status quo is "working." It was an odd claim -- we're kicking fine soldiers out of the military, at a severe cost, without a good reason. Nothing about this "works."

Hoping to defend his incoherence, McCain went on to blast President Obama for even committing to the change in policy in the first place.

"The fact is, this was a political promise made by an inexperienced President or candidate for Presidency of the United States."

This is cheap, pathetic rhetoric. Obama didn't make a "political promise"; he outlined a policy agenda, which included this shift in service requirements. It has, in case McCain hasn't noticed, been endorsed by the Defense Secretary, the Joint Chiefs chairman, a majority of the public, a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate.

What's more, Obama's not "inexperienced"; he's been the president of the United States in a time of a crisis for the last 22 months -- giving him exactly 22 months more experience in the big chair than the senator from Arizona.

I don't imagine I'm the only one thinking the once-credible "maverick" is still a little bitter about losing the 2008 race (and what was left of his stature).

Still, if there was any hope that McCain might show some decency on this issue, and take seriously the wishes of the vast majority of the country, he made clear those hopes are in vain. It's legacy time, and McCain wants to be remembered as the anti-gay crusader who fought progress at all costs.

Of course, it's not just McCain. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also appeared on one of the Sunday shows, and insisted that DADT repeal was likely to die in the lame-duck session. As he sees it, it has "nowhere near" the Senate support it needs.

I guess we can debate the meaning of the word "near." As of today, the defense spending bill that includes the repeal provision has 58 supporters and 42 opponents. If two Republicans break ranks allow the Senate to fund the troops, repeal will pass. So where's this "nowhere near" talk coming from?

Nevertheless, these remarks underscore what will be a huge week in the larger DADT push. The Pentagon's report on military attitudes will be released tomorrow, followed by Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Thursday and Friday. Mark Thompson has a report on the state of play, including the fact that the final showdown on this may come as early as next week.

Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

OBAMA TO FREEZE PAY FOR CIVILIAN FEDERAL WORKFORCE.... President Obama announced this morning his call for a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers, as part of a larger effort to reduce spending and cut the deficit.

The president's proposal will effectively wipe out plans for a 1.4 percent across-the-board raise in 2011 for 2.1 million civilian federal government employees, including those working at the Defense Department, but the freeze would not affect the nation's uniformed military personnel. The president has frozen the salaries of his own top White House staff members since taking office 22 months ago.

"Clearly this is a difficult decision," said Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and the government's chief performance officer. "Federal workers are hard-working and dedicated." But given the deficit, Mr. Zients added, "we believe this is the first of many difficult steps ahead."

The pay freeze will save $2 billion in the current fiscal year that ends in September 2011, $28 billion over five years and more than $60 billion over 10 years, officials said. That represents just a tiny dent in a $1.3 trillion annual deficit, but it offers a symbolic gesture toward public anger over unemployment, the anemic economic recovery and rising national debt.

For all I know, this might poll well. The public in general may like the idea of freezing these workers' pay, and the move will likely generate at least tepid praise from congressional Republicans.

But it's exceedingly annoying anyway, and I wish the White House wouldn't do stuff like this.

For one thing, it's really not what the economy needs. Granted, we're not talking about a lot of money, but to grow the economy, we need workers to have more money in their pockets, not less. A pay freeze is an anti-stimulus.

For another, if the White House expects a political reward for this, officials are likely to be disappointed. Remember the discretionary spending freeze the administration talked up in January? If memory serves, the public didn't notice and congressional Republicans complained anyway.

But what I would have really preferred to see is some kind of trade. If the president is willing to accept a civilian pay freeze, fine. I wish he wouldn't, but that's where he's prepared to go. But in exchange for this concession, Obama appears to be getting literally nothing in return.

This week, the president will sit down with Republican leaders from the House and Senate, and will say something to the effect of, "Well, I signaled a willingness to make a tough concession with the pay freeze. What kind of concessions are you prepared to make?" Boehner and McConnell will reply, "We're not willing to make any concessions at all"; the meeting will end; and we'll be left with 2.1 million Americans with less buying power.

The president has some extraordinary strengths. Negotiating tactics do not appear to be among them.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (68)

Bookmark and Share

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* With Joe Miller (R) refusing to concede his U.S. Senate race in Alaska, the state Republican Party is quickly moving away from its nominee. Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich posted a statement to the party's website the other day, shooting down each of Miller's defenses for sticking around.

* Miller, however, shows no signs of going anywhere.

* Speaking of unresolved statewide races, the manual recount in Minnesota's gubernatorial race gets underway today. Mark Dayton (D) currently leads Tom Emmer (R) by about 9,000 votes out of 2.1 million ballots cast.

* The AP checked in with 51 members of the Republican National Committee, and found that 39 of them hope chairman Michael Steele isn't on the ballot when they choose their next chairperson in January.

* Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton continues to hint at his interest in running for president -- yes, of the United States -- in 2012.

* Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R) is considering running for mayor in his hometown of West Palm Beach, Florida.

* And it's taken a while, but the Deep South's realignment is just about complete: "That the old Confederacy is shifting toward the GOP is, of course, nothing new. Southerners have been voting for Republican presidents, senators and governors for decades. But what this year's elections, and the subsequent party switching, have made unambiguously clear is that the last ramparts have fallen and political realignment has finally taken hold in one of the South's last citadels of Democratic strength: the statehouses."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share

KIRK CRYSTALLIZES CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATISM.... Mark Kirk (R), who will be sworn in as a U.S. senator today, recently boasted of his desire to join the chamber's "Mod Squad" -- his name for the small contingent of Republican moderates with great influence in the Senate.

But on economic policy, Kirk, perhaps best known for his borderline-pathological dishonesty about his background, is anything but moderate.

The Republican told MSNBC this morning, for example, that all of the Bush-era tax rates have to be extended "no matter what."

"We should extend the Bush tax cuts and make sure we don't have a double-dip recession. And I have the honor to be the first of ninety-five new Republicans, fiscal conservatives, to help right our ship of state."

And in the same interview, Kirk was asked whether he's against extending unemployment benefits for those still struggling in the weak economy. He replied:

"That's right. You could extend it if you found a way to pay for it. And I voted for that in the past. But these proposals to extend unemployment insurance by just adding it to the deficit are misguided."

And there it is in a nutshell -- massive tax cuts, adding trillions to the debt, should be passed without hesitation, and without thinking too much about the fact that they don't actually help the economy much. Aid to the jobless, however, which has enormous stimulative benefits, must be rejected, despite their much lower costs.

This couldn't offer a more clear contrast. On the one hand, we have hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts that will benefit millionaires and billionaires, and all of which would be added to the deficit. Kirk supports the cuts "no matter what."

On the other hand, we have 2.5 million Americans, all of whom are struggling badly, poised to lose jobless benefits. These benefits, which cost about $60 billion a year, tend to have an impressive stimulative effect -- when the unemployed get a check, they spend it -- which improves the larger economy. Kirk sees this as "misguided."

We can afford hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks that don't work, but we can't afford tens of billions of dollars in benefits that do work.

It's all about priorities.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

DRAWING THE TAX LINE AT $1 MILLION.... The first Democratic compromise plan on Bush-era tax rates was straightforward: a permanent lower rate for those making under $250,000; Clinton-era top rates for those making more. The second compromise floated by Dems was even more conservative: a permanent lower rate for those making under $250,000 and a temporary extension of existing rates for the wealthy. Congressional Republicans balked at both.

Now there's a third Democratic compromise plan.

Over the past few days, a growing number of lawmakers have publicly embraced the idea of extending expiring tax cuts for families making as much as $1 million a year. They include newly elected Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who argued on "Fox News Sunday" that "we should draw the line in the sand for millionaires."

The idea's chief proponent, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), said that raising the income threshold from $250,000, as Obama has proposed, has the potential to unite fractious Democrats behind a single strategy on the tax cuts, which are set to expire Dec. 31 unless Congress acts.

Schumer also said the higher threshold would make it far more difficult for Republicans to say no.

Almost immediately thereafter, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said no.

Still, Schumer's pitch isn't ridiculous. "There's a strong view in the caucus that if we make the dividing line $1 million, it becomes a very simple argument: We are for giving the middle class a tax break; they're for tax cuts for millionaires," the New York senator said yesterday. At $250,000, the message is "too muddled," he said. "It's much clearer at $1 million. It unites our base and the independent voters we lost in this election."

The next question, of course, is how much this would cost, and Jonathan Cohn connected with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to get an answer.

The original Democratic policy (extending tax breaks to those below $250,000) would cost about $3.2 trillion over the next decade, whereas the Republican alternative (permanent Bush-era rates for everyone) would cost about $4 trillion. The Schumer-backed compromise, meanwhile, would come in with a price tag in between: $3.6 trillion.

For all the talk about deficit commissions, spending cuts, and austerity, no one in the political establishment seems to think it's odd that policymakers are having this discussion -- and that those who claim to be most concerned about the debt are the ones pushing the most expensive package.

That said, if Republicans continue to believe even a penny of tax increases applied to one person is a bridge too far, and they're prepared to kill middle-class cuts unless they get everything they want, all of this is probably moot. Dems think the GOP would feel embarrassed about fighting tooth and nail to protect millionaires and billionaires at the expense of everyone else? That assumes Republicans are capable of shame.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

IF THEY CAN'T BEAT 'EM, JOIN 'EM.... I tend to think these deficit commissions and panels are asking the wrong question at the wrong time -- when it comes to the economy, the focus should be on creating jobs and boosting growth, not tackling the deficit.

I suspect most center-left observers agree with this, but the larger discussion appears to have slipped away. The establishment wants this to be a top priority, so it is. The left has a choice: keep trying to move the conversation away from deficit reduction, or move the conversation about deficit reduction in a more constructive direction.

This week, Demos, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Century Foundation, followed by the Citizens' Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America's Economic Future, will pursue the latter.

As President Obama's fiscal commission faces a deadline this week for agreement on a plan to shrink the mounting national debt, liberal organizations will unveil debt-reduction proposals of their own in the next two days, seeking to sway the debate in favor of fewer reductions in domestic spending, more cuts in the military and higher taxes for the wealthy.

The proposals from two sets of liberal advocacy groups highlight the deep ideological divides surrounding efforts to deal with the nation's budgetary imbalances, even as Mr. Obama's bipartisan commission works to finalize its recommendations by Wednesday -- and struggles for a formula that would get the backing of at least 14 of its 18 members, the threshold for sending its proposal to Congress for a vote.

The liberal approaches have quite a few things going for them. They're fiscally responsible and have a realistic chance of achieving their goal, and just as importantly, they do so in a progressive way -- protecting Social Security and raising taxes primarily on the very wealthy.

Paul Krugman added, "I'll need to work through the proposal, but one thing it clearly does is to explode the myth that there is no alternative to the Bowles-Simpson-type regressive proposal. A lot of inside-the-Beltway types have been trying to sell the notion that a severely weakened social safety net is the only possibility; it isn't. And it's definitely worth noting that even with the revenue measures in the progressive plan, the US would have lower overall taxation than almost any other advanced country."

The larger benefit continues to be the ability to compare competing options. If deficit reduction is the goal -- it shouldn't be, necessarily, but if it is -- there are different avenues to the same destination. These liberal coalitions are offering a credible direction, which should stack up quite favorably against its more conservative competitors.

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

Bookmark and Share

OUR ANNUAL PLEDGE DRIVE.... Long-time "Political Animal" readers may recall that we here at the Monthly host an annual fundraising drive. It's back, and in this season of giving, your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. With that in mind, the Monthly published this appeal this morning.

When Charles Peters launched the Washington Monthly in 1969, it was his notion to prod everyone to rethink liberal and conservative ideas, to look at our government, its leaders, and its institutions with fierce honesty -- and to make them better. He did not foresee how influential his magazine would become, changing policy debates on more than one occasion. Nor could he have foreseen the seismic shifts that have roiled the economy -- and the publishing world -- more than forty years later. But even though other magazines, newspapers, and Web sites are cutting back their coverage or shutting their doors altogether, we're still here in our cluttered little downtown DC office, still committed to providing -- in print and on the Web -- the cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever.

And now more than ever we need your support. Like other nonprofits such as public television and radio, we depend on the generous support of our readers and other donors. We've never charged for access to our blogs, our online College Guide and feature stories, and we don't intend to. Won't you help keep our handful of plucky young writers and editors telling stories about what really matters in Washington?

Your tax-deductible donation will make possible more of these kinds of stories, both in the magazine and on the Web. Any amount is welcome. But as you consider your donation, please think about what our society would be missing without stories like ours that keep a close watch on our government and its elected officials, and what your day would be like without your daily dose of Steve Benen's running commentary on "Political Animal."

So give generously -- $25, $50, $100 -- and if you donate $150 or more, we'll send you a hardcover copy of Monthly founder Charles Peters' latest book, Lyndon B. Johnson, individually signed by the author. It's the latest in "The American Presidents" series. The New Yorker says it is "illuminating" and "a resonant portrait of a man of prodigious political abilities, who was driven, but ultimately undone, by his temperamental flaws."

I'd add that, while we already have print and online ads, this only covers part of our overall expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming.

So, I hope we can count on your support. Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

Steve Benen 9:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

THE EFFORT TO MAKE KYL HAPPY.... On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Republican activist Ed Gillespie joined the roundtable discussion, and for some reason, was asked to reflect on his party's handling of the pending nuclear arms treaty, New START. He made a comment that was both important and wrong.

"You know, [Sen. Jon Kyl] has been asking legitimate questions for a long time about the START treaty," Gillespie said. "He's the number two Republican in the Senate, he is the leader in our party on these nuclear weapons issues, and the White House is essentially acted as if they're getting, you know, mail from a college intern working for a freshman House member."

To his credit, E.J. Dionne piped up and insisted that this is "not true." Regrettably, he wasn't given much of a chance to elaborate, and Gillespie insisted his version of reality is accurate.

It isn't. In Grown-Up Land, the Obama administration has been working with Kyl for months, trying to understand exactly what he's looking for, and making every effort to satisfy his demands. I don't really expect Gillespie to understand the issues he pops off on when appearing on national television, and David Gregory has already scoffed at the notion of fact-checking guests' on-air claims, but the truth is important here.

Over many months of negotiations, the administration committed to spending $80 billion to do that over the next 10 years, and on Friday offered to chip in $4.1 billion more over the next five years. As a gesture of commitment, the White House had made sure extra money for modernization was included in the stopgap spending resolution now keeping the government operating, even though almost no other program received an increase in money.

All told, White House officials counted 29 meetings, phone calls, briefings or letters involving Mr. Kyl or his staff. They said they thought they had given him everything he wanted, and were optimistic about completing a deal this week, only to learn about his decision on Tuesday from reporters.

An AP report added two weeks ago, "In a sign of the urgency of the administration's pitch, White House aides traveled to Kyl's home state of Arizona to brief him on the proposal" on modernization, the senator's top stated goal.

To argue that the administration has treated Kyl like "a college intern working for a freshman House member" is just insane.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

WIKILEAKS HAMPERS U.S. DIPLOMACY.... American officials were bracing for a massive WikiLeaks document dump, and late yesterday, it arrived.

A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration's exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks posted 220 cables, some redacted to protect diplomatic sources, in the first installment of the archive on its Web site on Sunday.

The disclosure of the cables is sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict. [...]

The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States' relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism.

Some of the revelations aren't surprising at all. The fact that U.S. officials believe corruption is rampant in the Karzai government, for example, isn't exactly front-page news. Nor is it surprising to learn there's plenty of spying going on at the United Nations, U.S. officials have been anxious to find countries willing to take Gitmo detainees, and that the Bush Administration didn't want Germany to arrest CIA officials who accidentally kidnapped an innocent German citizen and held him for months in Afghanistan.

Plenty of other revelations, meanwhile, are rather startling. While details will likely be coming out for weeks as more people are able to go through more materials, it's already surprising, for example, to see how many foreign governments, including the Saudis, have been supportive of a U.S. military strike on Iran.

I'm not convinced that the release of these secret materials -- some have begun calling it "Cablegate" -- will be too devastating to international diplomacy, though it certainly makes the State Department's work much more difficult, especially in the short term. I don't doubt that foreign diplomats will be reluctant to engage their American allies for a while, which may very well undermine U.S. foreign policy, but we're still likely talking about bruised feelings and hurt egos, not blockbuster secrets from around the globe.

I would, however, like to know more about the motivations of the leaker (or leakers). Revealing secrets about crimes, abuses, and corruption obviously serves a larger good -- it shines a light on wrongdoing, leading (hopefully) to accountability, while creating an incentive for officials to play by the rules. Leaking diplomatic cables, however, is harder to understand -- the point seems to be to undermine American foreign policy, just for the sake of undermining American foreign policy. The role of whistleblowers has real value; dumping raw, secret diplomatic correspondence appears to be an exercise in pettiness and spite.

I've seen some suggestions that diplomats shouldn't write cables that they'd be embarrassed by later if they were made publicly. I find that unpersuasive. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in the nuances of on-the-ground international affairs, but I am comfortable with the notion of some diplomatic efforts being kept secret. Quiet negotiations between countries can lead, and have led, to worthwhile foreign policy agreements, advancing noble causes.

If the argument from the leakers is that there should be no such thing as private diplomacy, they'll need a better excuse to justify this kind of recklessness.

Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND.... The days surrounding Thanksgiving are traditionally pretty slow, but we did cover some developments of note here at Political Animal.

On Sunday we covered, among other things, the disappearing influence of the old-guard GOP foreign-policy establishment within its own party; one of the more bizarre David Broder columns of the year; the Sunday shows' ongoing obsession with John McCain; the reemergence of culture-war issues at the state level; and the latest details of the alleged terrorist bomb plot in Portland, Oregon.

On Saturday we covered, among other things, President George H.W. Bush's NSA questioning his own party's motives on New START; David Gergen's unpersuasive defense of Tea Party activists; "This Week in God"; the silliness of relying on 2010 polling data to predict 2012 races; and Fox News' unfamiliarity with The Onion.

On Friday we covered, among other things, new data from the CBO on the efficacy of the Recovery Act; a response to Michael Gerson's criticism of one of my recent posts; and Tom DeLay's conviction on felony money laundering charges in Texas.

And on Wednesday we covered, among other things, Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) ridiculous understanding of the history of Thanksgiving; what the White House should do if congressional Republicans are prepared to undermine national progress deliberately; the lingering scourge of E coli conservatism; Glenn Beck's unintentionally amusing ideas about unionizing TSA officials; Rep. Gary Ackerman's (D-N.Y.) worthwhile HIPA-CRIT Act, which appears to be about three months too late; and discouraging economic growth projections from the Federal Reserve, which should prompt renewed efforts from policymakers, but aren't.

Steve Benen 7:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 28, 2010

WHEN ELDER STATESMEN NO LONGER HAVE THEIR PHONE CALLS RETURNED.... A couple of weeks ago, President Obama, commenting at the White House on the pending arms control treaty with Russia, noted, "It is a national security imperative that the United States ratify the New Start treaty this year. There is no higher national security priority for the lame-duck session of Congress."

More interesting than the comments, though, were the three men flanking the president at the time: Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger, all veterans of modern Republican presidents, and members in good standing of Republican Foreign Policy Elder Statesmen, at least by the standards of the Republican establishment.

The point Obama and his team wanted to emphasize, of course, is that this treaty enjoys broad bipartisan support, just so long as one overlooks the Senate Republican caucus. It didn't matter; the GOP votes that count are the ones that refuse to even consider the consequences of their conduct.

There was a time, not too long ago, that the political world would look to these proxies as evidence of merit. If Lugar, Scowcroft, Kissinger, James Baker, Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz, Reagan Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein, Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, and Colin Powell endorsed a treaty related to national security -- and all of these Republicans have urged ratification of New START -- it stood to reason that the measure would enjoy enthusiastic Republican backing. When six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties; and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces were all on the same page -- as they are now on New START -- the proposal on the table would fairly be described as a "no-brainer."

But that was before. Before what, exactly? Well, before the contemporary Republican Party became the contemporary Republican Party. Now, figures are left to search in vain for someone GOP senators might actually listen to.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has reserved judgment on how she will vote until the resolution comes to the floor, said it could make a difference if Obama could get George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, both former presidents, to appear with him in support of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START. [...]

"It would be wonderful if President [George H.W.] Bush would come out for the treaty. That would be so powerful and definitely help," Collins said in a telephone interview last week.

Really? All of these other Bush administration officials endorsing the treaty isn't quite enough to send a signal about the measure's merit?

Jacob Heilbrun recently explained that the GOP's handling of this debate offers us a chance to watch "the decline and fall of the Republican foreign-policy establishment." Ordinarily, sentences that include "Republican," "establishment," and "fall" might sound like an encouraging development, but in this case, it's really not -- the old-guard GOP foreign-policy establishment were the only folks left in the party still in touch with reality.

Their judgment is hardly unimpeachable -- cough, Iraq war, cough -- but they nevertheless offered at least some reasonable pushback to neoconservatism and the blind, knee-jerk partisanship that dominates Republican Party thinking.

Their influence, however, has disappeared. Republican policymakers are aware of the foreign policy old guard, but they prefer to ignore its members. It's an important development in the growing immaturity of GOP politics in the 21st century.

Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share

NOTHING WRONG WITH SOME COUNTER-TERRORISM BOASTS.... About a year ago, in the immediate wake of the failed Abdulmutallab terror plot on Christmas Day, Marc Ambinder had an item about the deliberate White House strategy.

Authorities respond appropriately; the President (as this president is wont to do) presides over the federal response. His senior aides speak for him, letting reporters know that he's videoconferencing regularly, that he's ordering a review of terrorist watch lists, that he's discoursing with his Secretary of Homeland Security.

But an in-person Obama statement isn't needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic (because Obama usually DOESN'T talk about the specifics of cases like this, and so him deciding to do so would cue the American people to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation. [...]

Let the authorities do their work. Don't presume; don't panic the country; don't chest-thump, prejudge, interfere, politicize (in an international sense), don't give Al Qaeda (or whomever) a symbolic victory; resist the urge to open the old playbook and run a familiar play.

Around that time, Republicans and the political establishment decided this sensible approach was all wrong. When there's a serious terror plot, even an unsuccessful one, mature leadership, focused on denying lunatics p.r. victories and maintaining public calm, is the last thing we need -- or so we've been told.

I respect the fact that the White House has resisted exploitation and fear-mongering. But with Mohamed Osman Mohamud's thwarted terrorist plot in mind, I wonder if the president and his team might consider a little more political grandstanding

Administration officials have had quite a bit of success over the last two years in preventing domestic terror attacks, capturing would-be mass murderers, and keeping the public safe, but no one seems to talk about it, precisely because it's not this White House's style to chest-thump after a job well done.

But as a consequence, I suspect much of the country just doesn't hear about these developments.

Does the typical voter, or even the typical political reporter, know about the administration arresting would-be terrorists Najibullah Zazi, Talib Islam, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, and now Mohamed Osman Mohamud into custody before they could launch their planned attacks? Perhaps not. If similar developments had occurred in, say, 2006, we'd see considerable efforts from the Bush White House and the Attorney General's office to boast about their success stories. GOP officials in the previous administration decided to make this a political priority -- even when they were celebrating minor developments.

President Obama, by all appearances, finds shameless politicization of counter-terrorism offensive. And it is. But the White House's critics would have Americans believe this administration isn't succeeding on this front, and isn't even taking the threat seriously. With this in mind, maybe some shameless exploitation, just to help get the word out, is in order?

Sometimes, leaders acting like a grown-up can go over the political world's head.

Steve Benen 12:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

BRODER BEING BRODER.... A week ago, David Broder mentioned in his Washington Post column that, in the post-midterm environment, there hasn't been any hint of Republicans' "willingness to compromise." I was glad to see him notice.

But those insights didn't last. Today, Broder ponders whether President Obama will finally try bipartisan compromise with those who refuse to compromise.

What if Barack Obama is telling the truth about his own beliefs when he says that neither party by itself can realistically hope to solve the challenges facing the United States?

Suppose he means it when he says that after the shellacking he and his fellow Democrats received in the midterm elections, he is ready and willing to hear the Republicans' ideas for dealing with jobs, taxes, energy and even nuclear weapons control.

I know that is supposing a lot -- so much that it seems impossible. It's more like the script for a Broadway musical than a plausible plotline for Washington. But nonetheless, suppose that he is serious when he says, over and over, as he did on Thanksgiving Day, that if we want to "accelerate this recovery" and attack the backlog of lost jobs, "we won't do it as any one political party. We've got to do it as one people." [...]

Suppose there is a chance that he is serious -- that after two years of trying to govern through one party, a party that held commanding majorities in the House and Senate but now has lost them, two years with landmark accomplishments but ultimate frustration of his hopes to change Washington, he has reverted to his original philosophy of governing.

Sigh.

The assumption that the president somehow abandoned his original, bipartisan, politics-be-damned approach to policymaking is popular among establishment types, but I think a good-faith analysis of Obama's first two years reflects a very different reality. In reality, the president appeared almost desperate to generate bipartisan support for major initiatives, and to the consternation of his base, quick to make concessions in the hopes of crafting proposals with broad support.

But it wasn't his fault these efforts failed. Republicans made a conscious, deliberate decision, which they have freely acknowledged, not to cooperate with the process of governing. Prominent GOP leaders haven't even been shy on this point, leading to a party that balked at White House initiatives, even going so far as to reject their own ideas.

Broder makes it sound as if the White House chose to simply cut Republicans out of the debate, on purpose, as a partisan scheme. But that's demonstrably false, at least as far as intentions go -- Obama reached out to the GOP, only to find his hand slapped away by angry, bitter partisans.

But Broder really goes astray when exploring next steps.

The Post columnist insists it's incumbent on President Obama, not congressional Republicans, to start making concessions to the other side, and specially encourages GOP leaders to go to a White House meeting this week "with a set of challenges to Obama's seriousness."

Why is it, exactly, that there will be no test of Republicans' seriousness? Broder doesn't say.

They might start with an area that traditionally has been beyond politics: national security. The president has said it is a high priority for him to see the New START treaty with Russia ratified during this lame-duck session of Congress.

Jon Kyl, the Republican No. 2 in the Senate and its lead voice on nuclear policy, has raised a number of issues he says must be resolved before such approval is given. Kyl and Obama have been negotiating through intermediaries and have satisfied each other on most but not all points.

The Republicans could ask Obama to sit down directly with Kyl and see if they can compromise on the rest. That would be a fair first test of Obama's sincerity.

For goodness sakes. Maybe the Senate can ratify an arms treaty that advances American national security if Jon Kyl gets face time in the Oval Office? Administration officials have practically been tripping over one another, trying to figure out how to make Kyl happy. He presented some demands, the White House agreed to the terms, and Kyl still chose betrayal. A "fair first test of Obama's sincerity" is chatting with the far-right senator one on one? Here's an idea: maybe David Broder can offer some evidence of Jon Kyl's sincerity, since it appears to be hiding well.

Another involves the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts. Almost everyone agrees they should be renewed for the 98 percent of American families earning below $250,000 a year. The president opposes but Republicans support extending them also for the top 2 percent.

That is another issue on which Boehner and McConnell would be justified in challenging Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to negotiate with them and the top Republicans on the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees.

Again, I don't know which Capitol Hill Broder's been watching, but the White House has already offered two major compromise proposals on Bush-era tax rates. Both were rejected by Republicans, who said they're not open to compromise on this issue at all.

Broder's entire vision of current events appears to be filtered through a Republican lens. Obama reaches out, Republicans refuse, and Broder ponders when the president will get serious about bipartisan compromise.

Has the columnist not noticed current events for the last two years?

Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

IF IT'S SUNDAY.... You'll never guess who's on one of the Sunday morning public affairs talk shows.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is calling for "regime change" in North Korea -- and blames the recent crisis on the failings of Pyongyang's lone international supporter, China.

"It's time we talked about regime change in North Korea -- and I do not mean military action -- but I do believe that this is a very unstable regime," McCain told Candy Crowley Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." [...]

McCain, in his first appearance on the show, lit into Beijing, while tepidly endorsing China's plan for emergency multi-party talks. [emphasis added]

As a substantive matter, McCain's foreign policy analysis was strikingly superficial, which should only come as a surprise to those in the Washington establishment who continue to mistake the senator for someone who has an expertise in international affairs.

But I especially liked that line about this being McCain's first-ever appearance on "State of the Union." That's only true if one plays some semantics games -- the conservative Arizonan has been on the show many times, just not since the rebranding and change in hosts.

Indeed, the words "John McCain" and "first appearance" clearly don't belong in the same sentence when we're talking about the Sunday shows. This morning's appearance was McCain 26th appearance on a Sunday show just since President Obama's inauguration.

Since the president took office 22 months ago, McCain has been on CBS's "Face the Nation" five times (1.24.10, 10.25.09, 8.30.09, 4.26.09, and 2.8.09), NBC's "Meet the Press" six times (11.14.10, 6.27.10, 2.28.10, 12.6.09, 7.12.09, and 3.29.09), ABC's "This Week" four times (7.4.10, 9.27.09, 8.23.09, and 5.10.09), and "Fox News Sunday" six times (9.5.10, 4.18.10, 12.20.09, 7.2.09, 3.8.09, and 1.25.09). His appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" this morning is his fifth since Obama took office (11.28.10, 1.10.10, 10.11.09, 8.2.09, and 2.15.09).

If there's a good explanation for bookers' obsession with the failed presidential candidate, I can't think of it.

Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

CULTURE WARRIORS PUT ON THEIR COMBAT BOOTS.... There's periodic talk from some Republican leaders about a "truce" in the culture war, and polls suggest most Americans want policymakers to focus on economic issues. Fresh off their midterm victories, however, many Republicans are poised to invest time and energy into hot-button social issues.

Although fixing the economy is the top priority, Republicans who won greater control of state governments in this month's election are considering how to pursue action on a range of social issues, including abortion, gun rights and even divorce laws.

Incoming GOP governors and legislative leaders across the nation insist they intend to focus initially on fiscal measures to spur the economy, cut spending and address state budget problems.

"At this point, the economy dominates everything, and until the economy is turned around and our fiscal house put in order, there's not going to be a lot of appetite for anything else," said Whit Ayres, a pollster in Alexandria, Va., whose firm did research for several GOP candidates in the midterm race.

But the pressure to go further, as soon as possible, is only slightly below the surface in states where conservatives' top social goals have been foiled for years by Democratic vetoes and legislative obstacles.

Nearly all of the culture war focus is going on at the state level. In Washington, Republicans would no doubt welcome the chance to tackle these issues, but a Democratic White House and Senate renders most of the far-right wish list irrelevant, at least for now.

But at state houses, conservatives have grand ambitions. The AP's report noted that Wisconsin, for example, will take up measures to restrict abortion rights, expanding concealed-weapon laws, and strip gay state employees and their domestic partners of their benefits. Kansas will tackle stem-cell and divorce policies, while making the state "as close to an abortion-free zone as possible." The far-right is demanding similar moves from newly-elected Republican administrations in Michigan, Iowa, and Ohio.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, also reported recently that voters can expect related culture war fights elsewhere, including a battle of sex ed in North Carolina, and fights over gay rights in Minnesota and New Hampshire.

All of this is the result of voters giving Republicans more legislative control than the party has had since 1952.

Americans who thought they were voting on economic issues may be in for a rude awakening.

Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

DANFORTH FEARS GOP MAY REACH POINT 'BEYOND REDEMPTION'.... With Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) inadvertently raising his nation profile lately, the New York Times notes an interesting larger context: the long-time conservative Hoosier isn't afraid to break party ranks when he thinks it's important.

Mavericks are not in vogue these days on Capitol Hill, a place where hyper-partisanship and obduracy seem to be their own rewards.

But Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican who played that role long before it had a brand name, is standing against his party on a number of significant issues at a politically dangerous time to do so.

A reliable conservative for decades on every issue, he nonetheless fought President Ronald Reagan -- and prevailed -- on apartheid penalties and over the Philippine presidential election. He went head to head with Senator Jesse Helms in the 1990s over the nomination of William F. Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, as ambassador to Mexico.

Now, in the heat of the post-primary lame-duck Congressional session, he is defying his party on an earmark ban, a bill that would create a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, a military spending authorization bill and an arms control treaty with Russia.

He even declined to sign a brief supporting state lawsuits against President Obama's health care law because he saw it as political posturing.

Good for him. In an era in which Republican lawmakers too often act like mindless partisan drones, principally concerned with what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News will say about their efforts, Lugar is an old-school statesman -- committed to his conservative beliefs, but willing to put national interests above party politics on issues he considers important. I probably disagree with Lugar about 90% of the time, but even I can appreciate the fact that the senator brings some integrity and seriousness of purpose to his work.

For his trouble, Lugar may very well face a primary challenger when he seeks re-election in 2012, a prospect some respected party leaders find chilling.

Former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), who joined the Senate the same year as Lugar, told the Times, "If Dick Lugar, having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption."

I'm not sure how much more evidence Danforth would need. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) faced a primary challenger in the 2010 cycle, as did Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and former Republican Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. In 2012, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) will very likely face an intra-party challenge of her own.

Hasn't the contemporary Republican Party already "gone overboard" in targeting members the base considers insufficiently right-wing?

Lugar, meanwhile, seems almost certain to face a primary challenger. A spokesperson for the Indianapolis Tea Party condemned Lugar for his "more moderate" voting record -- which seems pretty silly given how conservative he is -- and the chair of the Indiana Republican Party added that a primary race appears likely.

Given this, Danforth's concerns, which are more than reasonable, appear to be based on the fear that the unhinged right may soon completely dominate Republican politics. My only response to the retired senator is, his fears have already been realized.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

DETAILS EMERGE ON THWARTED OREGON BOMB PLOT.... Following up on yesterday's item, additional details are coming to light about Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a 19-year-old naturalized American citizen, who intended to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.

From the outset, Mohamud, a Somali-born immigrant, was never close to actually obtaining dangerous materials, dealing with undercover law enforcement officials over the course of nearly six months. But there's little doubt that the would-be terrorist was, as one official put it, "absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale."

We're also learning how the accused came to the attention of the FBI in the first place.

The F.B.I.'s surveillance started in August 2009 after agents intercepted his e-mails with a man he had met in Oregon who had returned to the Middle East, according to a law enforcement official who described the man as a recruiter for terrorism. According to the affidavit, the man had moved to Yemen and then northwest Pakistan, a center of terrorism activity.

Mr. Mohamud was then placed on a watch list and stopped at the Portland airport in June 2010 when he tried to fly to Alaska for a summer job.

Later in June, aware of Mr. Mohamud's frustrated attempts to receive training as a jihadist overseas, an undercover agent first made contact with him, posing as an associate of the man in Pakistan. On the morning of July 30, the F.B.I. first met with Mr. Mohamud in person to initiate the sting operation.

The planning for the attack evolved from there, with Mr. Mohamud taking an aggressive role, insisting that he wanted to cause many deaths and selecting the Christmas target, according to federal agents. Reminded that many children and families would be at the ceremony, Mr. Mohamud said that he was looking for "a huge mass" of victims, according to the F.B.I.

The identity of the man Mohamud exchanged emails with is not yet clear.

Aware of entrapment legal defenses, undercover agents offered Mohamud multiple alternatives to mass murder, including mere prayer. But he insisted he wanted to play an "operational" role, and even picked his target. Told he'd likely kill a lot of children, Mohamud said, "Yeah, I mean that's what I'm looking for." Pushed him further on whether he's prepared to commit such an act, Mohamud told agents, "I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured."

That the law enforcement process appears to have worked flawlessly to stop this monster is very good news.

With that in mind, there appear to be some on the right who consider this story evidence of America getting "lucky" on counter-terrorism. I don't think good fortune had anything to do with it -- law enforcement identified, approached, apprehended, and charged a young man prepared to commit mass murder. If Mohamud had nearly detonated an actual car bomb, but screwed it up in some way, that might constitute "luck." But that's not what happened.

I realize there's a temptation on the right to discount the notion of Obama administration counter-terrorism successes, but when officials get it right, that's cause for congratulatory praise.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 27, 2010

SCOWCROFT GOES THERE.... Politico reports today on Sen. Dick Lugar (R) of Indiana, who has taken a strong leadership role on New START ratification, despite the larger partisan dynamic. That the treaty was negotiated by a president of the other party appears completely irrelevant to the respected former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But the article notes that the elder statesmen of the Republican Party have been left largely mystified by the blind partisanship of their party's senators. (via Ben Armbruster)

In an attempt to rally bipartisan support for the treaty, the White House has enlisted the kind of GOP foreign policy wise men that Lugar exemplifies -- among them former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker. But they have had no success with members of their own party, and it has left them scratching their heads over the source of the GOP opposition.

"It's not clear to me what it is," said Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush who noted that this START treaty is not very different from previous ones negotiated and ratified under Republican presidents. "I've got to think that it's the increasingly partisan nature and the desire for the president not to have a foreign policy victory."

This is no small observation. Scowcroft, one of the more respected Republican voices in the national security establishment, is noting, on the record, that he suspects his own party is putting their partisan interests above the needs of the nation. The underlying point of an observation like Scowcroft is that he sees his Republican Party putting petty partisanship above national security.

What's more, others in the political establishment are beginning to reach the same conclusion. AEI's Norm Ornstein, marveling at GOP's misconduct this week, said, "I cannot fathom why they are doing what they are doing." The Washington Post Dana Milbank noted last week that Republicans appear to be "trying to weaken Americans' security," concluding, "To borrow Bush's phrase, are Republicans not interested in the security of the American people?" Paul Krugman argued that the GOP is blocking ratification "not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it's an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it."

I can appreciate the reluctance of questioning politicians' motives, but there's an ongoing effort underway to try to understand why Republicans would choose to act this way. So far, a variety of observers from left to right seem to be having trouble identifying a good-faith rationale for the GOP's opposition. That some of this is coming from the likes of Brent Scowcroft should send a pretty loud signal to the rest of the political world.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM.... Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi recently hosted a post-midterm discussion with David Gergen and Gary Hart, and it led to an exchange I've been meaning to mention.

Taibbi: To me, the main thing about the Tea Party is that they're just crazy. If somebody is able to bridge the gap with those voters, it seems to me they will have to be a little bit crazy too. That's part of the Tea Party's litmus test: "How far will you go?"

Gergen: I flatly reject the idea that Tea Partiers are crazy. They had some eccentric candidates, there's no question about that. But I think they represent a broad swath of the American electorate that elites dismiss to their peril.

Hart: I agree with David. When two out of five people who voted last night say they consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, we make a huge mistake to suggest that they are some sort of small fringe group and do not represent anybody else.

Taibbi: I'm not saying that they're small or a fringe group.

Gergen: You just think they're all crazy.

Taibbi: I do.

Gergen: So you're arguing, Matt, that 40 percent of those who voted last night are crazy?

Taibbi: I interview these people. They're not basing their positions on the facts — they're completely uninterested in the facts. They're voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that's enough for them.

Gergen: The great unwashed are uneducated, so therefore their views are really beneath serious conversation?

Taibbi: I'm not saying they're beneath serious conversation. I'm saying that these people vote without acting on the evidence.

Gergen: I find it stunning that the conversation has taken this turn. I disagree with the Tea Party on a number of issues, but it misreads who they are to dismiss them as some kind of uneducated know-nothings who have somehow seized power in the American electorate. It is elitist to its core. We would all be better off if we spent more time listening to each other rather than simply writing them off.

I'm still not entirely sold on the idea of characterizing Tea Partiers as some kind of distinct political contingent, separate from the Republican base. It's not a "movement" in any meaningful sense. (If 40% of participating voters identified themselves as members of the Republican Party's conservative base, would anyone find that especially noteworthy?)

We're talking about an amorphous group of activists with no clear agenda, no leadership, no internal structure, and no real areas of expertise. Its passionate members, while probably well meaning, when they're not disagreeing with one another about what's important, appear to have no idea what they're talking about.

The Gergen/Hart argument is that their numbers lend them credibility. But isn't that a pretty clear example of argumentum ad populum? "Tea Partiers aren't crazy, because there's so many of them"? Taibbi argued that these are activists who aren't relying on evidence or reason to shape their political worldview. Gergen's response seems to be that this doesn't really matter, since a lot of people appear to no longer rely on evidence or reason.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Gergen's criticism about elitism and resisting the urge to dismiss politically-engaged activists, simply because their ideas are without merit. If a huge chunk of the electorate is pushing the country in one direction, the political world should take that seriously.

But isn't the problem here that Taibbi's criticism is fair? Gergen wants Americans to listen to one another, which strikes me as more than reasonable. But what do we do when we're done listening, and we realize that a contingent is saying things that don't make sense?

Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share

TERROR PLOT THWARTED IN OREGON.... We've seen a fair number of incidents like these in recent years, and every time they occur, I'm reminded to be thankful for the effectiveness of law enforcement officials, who have a strong track record.

Federal agents in a sting operation arrested a Somali-born teenager just as he tried blowing up a van he believed was loaded with explosives at a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, authorities said.

The bomb was an elaborate fake supplied by the agents and the public was never in danger, authorities said.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was arrested at 5:40 p.m. Friday just after he dialed a cell phone that he thought would set off the blast but instead brought federal agents and police swooping down on him.

As the AP's report explained, the plot was months in the making, and the would-be terrorist, a naturalized American citizen, was dead serious about his intentions. Mohamud fully expected to commit mass murder, and rebuffed opportunities to back out. Fortunately, he was dealing with undercover FBI agents from the outset.

"The threat was very real," said Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon. "Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale."

Friday, an agent and Mohamud drove to downtown Portland in a white van that carried six 55-gallon drums with detonation cords and plastic caps, but all of them were inert, the complaint states.

They left the van near the downtown ceremony site and went to a train station where Mohamud was given a cell phone that he thought would blow up the vehicle, according to the complaint. There was no detonation when he dialed, and when he tried again federal agents and police made their move.

Congratulations are, of course, in order for all the officials involved. Success stories like these are heartening. I'd also note similar successes, which played in nearly identical ways.

As for the larger context, stories like these are yet another reminder about the nature of effective counter-terrorism. For years, Republicans insisted that combating terrorism was a matter of military might, and any suggestions to the contrary were evidence of weakness. Democrats have countered that keeping Americans safe also meant relying on intelligence gathering and law enforcement -- because the White House isn't exactly going to send a marine battalion into Portland.

Also note, Mohamed Osman Mohamud was identified, approached, apprehended, and charged, all without torturing anyone. Playing by the rules and preventing terror need not be in conflict.

The AP added that Mohamud has been charged with the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, "which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison." The accused will make his first court appearance on Monday.

Here's hoping Rudy Giuliani and Liz Cheney resist the urge to whine about his appearing in an American criminal court.

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

THE GLOBAL-COMPETITION ARGUMENT.... There are obviously competing approaches to presenting agendas to the public, but I've generally been fond of framing challenges as matters of global competition.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) warned Thursday that America needs to embrace clean-energy technologies instead of focusing on oil drilling, "or China is going to eat our lunch."

Appearing on Fox News, Inslee said he supported a ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, arguing that the reserves there would barely make a dent in the country's oil needs.

But he stressed that the U.S. needed to shift the argument from where to drill to what energy technologies can replace drilling.

"China right now is preparing to roll out electric cars, lithium ion batteries, solar cells, cellulosic ethanol. This is where the future of energy is. We've a finite resource in oil, just like we had a finite resource in whale oil, and we made a transition," he said. "And we have to really focus our national energies in a bipartisan way, I would hope, on finding our way to compete with China to really build new energy sources of the future."

The point, in context, was Inslee making the case for the U.S. making a more serious commitment to innovation and clean energy. He's right about the limited effect of ANWR drilling, but more importantly, he's also right about global competitors making advances that should be happening here.

President Obama has made a similar case repeatedly in recent years, stressing the fact that countries like China and India "aren't playing for second place." There's a gut-level appeal to messages like these, at least there might be, targeting a certain nationalistic impulse -- advancing America's interests isn't just about a debate over the size of government, it's also about positioning the United States as a world leader in a competitive landscape.

When it comes to clean energy, then, Republicans will continue to make the case that science isn't to be believed and that tax cuts will solve all problems, but Dems have a compelling retort: the GOP way will allow China and other rivals to move pass us, and we shouldn't sit idly by while this happens.

Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is an unexpected announcement Pope Benedict XVI related to contraception and sexual health. By some measures, it's something of a breakthrough.

Pope Benedict XVI's recent comments about the use of condoms in select cases apply to women as well as men, the Vatican said Tuesday, a surprising first acknowledgment from the church that condom use can be part of a broader effort at AIDS prevention.

The clarification did not represent a change in church teaching on birth control, which remains forbidden, but it appeared to be a significant first response to critics who have long seen the church's ban on condoms as a moral failing in light of the AIDS crisis.

The window here is pretty narrow. Benedict was reportedly only referring to prostitutes, and the notion that condom use can help reduce the spread of disease, and in the process, be part of a "moralization" of sexuality.

His comments indicated that even though Benedict was not changing church doctrine, he was raising the possibility that condoms could be a responsible option if used to prevent disease. He was responding to a question about a controversy he set off last year. En route to Africa, Benedict had said that condoms worsened the spread of AIDS, and that it could be prevented only by abstinence and responsibility.

In expressing this new position, the pope, a theologian widely seen as conservative, showed himself to be at once doctrinaire and highly attuned to local realities.

A Vatican spokesperson said the remarks had been offered "colloquially," not necessarily reflecting the official teachings of the church.

Still, given where the Vatican has been on the issue, it was evidence of at least some progress.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R) of Florida incorporates his religiosity into his political persona, but there's some question about his religious identity. On the one hand, he describes himself as a "practicing and devout Roman Catholic." On the other hand, Rubio attends religious services at an evangelical megachurch, affiliated with Southern Baptists, with a theological worldview "plainly at odds with Catholic teaching."

* The Family Research Council is a religious-right powerhouse in the nation's capital, known for its hatred for the LGBT community. With FRC leaders escalating their anti-gay rhetoric in recent years, the Southern Poverty Law Center is now designating the Family Research Council as a "hate group."

* And with some far-right activists already complaining again about American society's "war on Christmas," it appears that the Republican National Committee has, surprisingly enough, sided with those rascally secular progressives. The RNC's website is now selling Republican tree ornaments that read, "Happy Holidays."

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

THE POLITICAL WORLD SHOULD KNOW BETTER BY NOW.... Byron York's piece on 2012 in the Washington Examiner the other day generated some attention, so it's probably worth revisiting a fairly obvious point.

We're fast approaching the halfway point in Barack Obama's term. With Nov. 2 behind him, everything the president does will be calculated to boost, or at least not harm, his chances of re-election in 2012. What's not clear is whether he fully appreciates how badly the coalition he led to victory in 2008 has frayed in just two years. A look inside his poll numbers suggests that if he cannot turn around some key trends, he'll be a one-term president. [...]

At this point, it will be hard for Obama to save himself. He'll need a lot of help to win a second term in the White House.

I have absolutely no idea what the political landscape will look like in two years -- and neither does anyone else. It's why this kind of analysis is ultimately pointless. The problem isn't that York is relying on faulty data or misleading results; the problem is the absurdity of the exercise itself.

I'd hoped the political world would know better by now. Two years ago, the notion that Republicans would have a net gain of 63 U.S. House seats in the 2010 midterms was completely ridiculous, but that's precisely what happened. The developments were a reminder that two years is a long time in politics, and conditions can change quite a bit.

What's more, we've seen scenarios like this before. At this point in Bill Clinton's first term, a third of Democratic voters didn't want him to run for re-election. In a hypothetical match-up against Bob Dole, the Republican Senate leader led the president by double digits nationwide.

Though York skipped over the 40th president, Reagan was in abysmal shape two years into his presidency. In late 1982, a Gallup poll showed Reagan trailing then-Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) by 15 points, and behind Walter Mondale by 12 points. Immediately after the 1982 midterms, another poll showed 56% of the country did not want Reagan to seek a second term. Steve Kornacki recently noted that after the '82 midterms, "some outspoken conservatives even demanded -- publicly -- that [Reagan] be challenged in the '84 primaries if he went ahead and ran."

Two years before the 1992 race, it was assumed that George H. W. Bush would win in a landslide (he lost). Two years before the 1996 race, Clinton was a sure goner (he won easily). Two years before the 1984 race, Reagan was an embarrassing failure who had no shot at a second term (he won overwhelmingly). Maybe Obama's standing will improve, maybe not. But shouldn't recent history at least offer us hints about the wisdom of predictions two years out?

York briefly acknowledged that Clinton's fortunes improved in his third and fourth years in office, but he talked to Clinton pollster Doug Schoen who doesn't think Obama will see a similar recovery. In what may be the week's most hilarious political paragraph, it appears that, Schoen -- the Fox News "Democrat" who hates Democrats -- conducted a poll recently and found that voters aren't inclined to give Obama a second term.

Oh, well, in that case....

Look, Schoen may have done related polling in late 1994, and would have found similar results about Clinton. That's the point. Doing a poll two years before a presidential election offers skewed and unreliable results. Schoen and York are arguing that Clinton recovered after dreadful poll numbers in 1996, but Obama probably won't, because of dreadful poll numbers in 2010.

Is this supposed to be persuasive?

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

BLURRING THE SATIRICAL LINE.... Most half-way savvy news consumers know The Onion offers award-winning satire. It publishes items that look like news stories, but which are clearly intended to be funny.

With that in mind, an Onion piece this week headlined, "Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail," drew some chuckles.

Having admittedly "reached the end of [his] rope," President Barack Obama sent a rambling 75,000-word e-mail to the entire nation Wednesday, revealing deep frustrations with America's political culture, his presidency, U.S. citizens, and himself.

The e-mail, which was titled "A couple things," addressed countless topics in a dense, stream-of-consciousness rant that often went on for hundreds of words without any punctuation or paragraph breaks. Throughout, the president expressed his aggravation on subjects as disparate as the war in Afghanistan, the sluggish economic recovery, his live-in mother-in-law, China's undervalued currency, Boston's Logan Airport, and tort reform.

According to its timestamp, the e-mail was sent at 4:26 a.m.

"Hey Everyone," read the first line of the president's note, which at 27 megabytes proved too large for millions of Americans' in-boxes....

It goes on from there, even including a copy of the nonexistent 75,000-word email.

Fox News' "Fox Nation" website, however, didn't get the joke. It ran this as an actual news story, including a link back to the satire-based site. Fox's commenters seemed overjoyed by the notion of an unbalanced president rambling in a semi-coherent email, unaware that they were all excited about a story that was quite literally a joke.

Hours later, Fox pulled its report, but made no effort to explain that it had fallen for a gag. Fox Nation simply deleted its entry without explanation. (Part of me isn't sure why they bothered. It's not like The Onion's piece was qualitatively less reliable than most of Fox's other "reporting.")

I am curious, though, how something like this could happen. Let's say, just for the sake of conversation, that Fox's editors have never heard of The Onion, or at a minimum, didn't realize the site is satirical. And let's also say that they found it plausible that President Obama would send a rambling, semi-coherent, 75,000-word email to the entire country.

Did it not occur to Fox's editors that neither they nor anyone they knew actually received this email? Did they not notice that literally no media outlets on the planet were talking about what would have been a big political story?

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 26, 2010

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

* Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: "Tension mounted Friday near a South Korean island bombarded this week by North Korea, as the North's military again fired artillery, this time in what appeared to be a drill on its own territory. As an American aircraft carrier steamed toward the Yellow Sea for joint exercises with South Korea, the North's state-run media warned that the maneuvers could push the Korean Peninsula closer to 'the brink of war,' while China also raised objections."

* Following up on that last point: "This weekend's arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea poses a dilemma for Beijing: Should it protest angrily and aggravate ties with Washington, or quietly accept the presence of a key symbol of American military pre-eminence off Chinese shores?"

* Europe can afford to bailout Greece. And Ireland. Perhaps even Portugal. Spain is a different story.

* Presidential stitches: "President Obama had to get 12 stitches in his lip after getting a blow from an opposing player's elbow during a basketball game Friday morning, White House officials said." (Lazy media folk looking for a metaphor: the president may get banged up, but at least he's not afraid to get in the game.)

* As if health care wasn't already facing political difficulties: "As the Obama administration presses ahead with the health care law, officials are bracing for the possibility that a federal judge in Virginia will soon reject its central provision as unconstitutional and, in the worst case for the White House, halt its enforcement until higher courts can rule."

* John Judis weighs the evidence and concludes, "[T]he Obama administration's failure to seize the political opportunity afforded by the Great Recession has not necessarily opened the way to a new Republican majority. More likely, it will lead to a period where the two parties exchange power, and where neither can establish a long-lasting majority."

* And based on Fox News' own standards, such as they are, shouldn't senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano "be fired immediately" for dipping his toe into 9/11 Trutherism? This week, the far-right analyst appeared on a radical radio show and declared that the attacks of 911 "couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Alaska's still-unresolved U.S. Senate race, Joe Miller (R) has sued the state of Alaska and the Alaska Division of Elections, prompting Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) to file a motion asking to be a party to the suit "to keep those thousands of voters from being disenfranchised by Mr. Miller."

* Late Wednesday, San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris (D) was declared the winner of California's state attorney general race, edging past Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley (R) in the final tally. Harris' win solidifies her position as a rising star in Democratic politics, and gives California Dems a clean sweep of the statewide offices in an otherwise strong year for Republicans.

* On a related note, the latest L.A. Times/USC poll finds that California will likely be a lock for Democrats for a while -- nearly one in five Golden State voters said they would never cast a ballot for a Republican, nearly quadruple the figure for Democrats. What's more, nearly a third of Latino voters said the same thing about their attitudes towards the GOP.

* In still-more California-related news, incumbent Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) was declared the winner on Wednesday in his re-election in bid in the state's 11th district.

* At this point, there's only one unresolved U.S. House remaining: New York's 1st district. For now, incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop (D) has a very narrow, 235-vote lead over GOP challenger Randy Altschuler. Overall, the net Republican gains for the cycle is still 63 seats.

* Sen. Bob Casey (D) will seek re-election in 2012, and the first Republican to announce a campaign against him is Marc Scaringi, a former aide to former Sen. Rick Santorum (R).

* Sen.-elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) will reportedly be sworn in on Monday, giving the Senate a 58-42 split for the remainder of the lame-duck session.

* And don't be too surprised if former wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R), who lost her U.S. Senate race in Connecticut by 12 points earlier this month, tries electoral politics again. She hasn't even ruled out running in 2012 against Sen. Joe Lieberman (I).

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

STIMULUS FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS.... There's ample evidence that the public, in general, believes last year's Recovery Act was ineffective. Actual analyses paint a far different picture.

The massive U.S. stimulus package, widely viewed by voters to be ineffective, put 1.4 million to 3.6 million people to work between July and September, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also boosted national output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent during that period, CBO said in its latest estimate.

CBO's estimates have consistently shown that the $814 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, construction spending and enhanced safety-net provisions has blunted the impact of the worst U.S. recession since the 1930s.

President Obama noted a couple of weeks ago, "The hardest argument to make in politics is, things would have been a lot worse if we hadn't done all those taken all these steps." Agreed, it is an awfully difficult argument -- people recognize the conditions in front of them, not the hypothetical circumstances on the road not traveled.

That said, those other circumstances are not a mystery. The unemployment rate is 9.6%, but without the Recovery Act, the Congressional Budget Office concluded it could have been as high as 11.6% right now. The economy grew at 2.5% in the last quarter, but in the absence of the stimulus, the CBO found that the economy likely would still be shrinking.

All told, as many as 3.6 million Americans have jobs right now, who would otherwise be out of work, thanks to the maligned Recovery Act.

House Appropriations Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) insisted the other day that a top Republican priority next year will be identifying $12 billion in remaining stimulus funds and, instead of injecting it into the economy, ensuring that the money isn't spent at all.

How would that help the economy? Lewis didn't say.

Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

A (PARTIAL) PALIN DEFENSE.... The latest slip-up by a certain former half-term governor generated some attention the other day, but I'm not especially inclined to give her a hard time about it.

Sarah Palin made her latest verbal gaffe on Wednesday, claiming North Korea is one of America's allies on Glenn Beck's radio show when asked how she'd handle the recent escalation between the two Koreas. "This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy," the former vice presidential candidate said on Wednesday. "But obviously we've gotta stand with our North Korean allies." The host corrected her. "South Korea," Beck said. "Eh, yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes," Palin responded.

Oliver Willis posted the audio, and to be sure, she doesn't sound like she's especially well versed on the subject.

Palin offered a defense yesterday, noting "all too human slips-of-the-tongue," which seems reasonable. I know I've made mistakes like these before -- typing "Iraq" when I meant "Iran," accidentally misidentifying a politician's party affiliation, etc. -- so I find it easy to be charitable in a case like this.

But there is a relevant, larger context, which is that Palin's conspicuous unintelligence makes it harder to give her the benefit of the doubt. If Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) had misspoken while urging support for New START and referenced "Soviets," it wouldn't be much of a news story -- no one seriously believes Lugar is ignorant about counter-proliferation and Russian nuclear policy.

Palin, however, has a far different reputation. When she insists "we've gotta stand with our North Korean allies," fair-minded people might pause a moment to wonder if Palin might not know the difference between the countries on the Korean peninsula.

Indeed, as recently as 2008, Palin was a candidate for national office despite not knowing "why North and South Korea were separate countries." (John Heilemann later reported that McCain campaign aides acknowledged that Palin "didn't really understand why there was a North Korea and a South Korea.")

Did Palin just misspeak on Wednesday? Probably, yes, which is hardly a big deal. But it's her record of embarrassing ignorance that makes it so easy to believe the worst.

Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share

GERSON MAKES HIS CASE.... It's not every day I'm called out in a Washington Post print column, so I suppose I'm compelled to return once again to the discussion surrounding Saturday's "sabotage" item.

Today, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who passed along a message on Twitter the other day calling me an "idiot," devotes much of his print column to the observation I raised. Not surprisingly, the Post columnist wasn't especially impressed by my presentation.

He suggests at the outset that my argument is somehow an attempt to avoid dealing with the "inadequacies" and "failure" of "liberalism." It's an odd line of reasoning -- Gerson's former boss bequeathed an economic catastrophe, a jobs crisis, a massive deficit, and a housing crisis, among other calamities. Democratic policymakers, scrambling to address the catastrophic failures of Bush-brand conservatism, have managed to create an economy that's growing, creating jobs, and generating private-sector profits, while stabilizing a financial system that teetered on collapse. (What's more, if Gerson believes the size and scope of the Obama administration's economic agenda are consistent with what "liberalism" has in mind, he knows far less about the ideology than he should.)

If Gerson is anxious to explore the "inadequacies" and "failures" of a modern political ideology, I might suggest he's looking in the wrong place.

But more importantly, Gerson's column takes issue with his perceptions of my argument.

[T]here is an alternative narrative, developed by those who can't shake their reverence for Obama. If a president of this quality and insight has failed, it must be because his opponents are uniquely evil, coordinated and effective. The problem is not Obama but the ruthless conspiracy against him.

So Matt Yglesias warns the White House to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP - as though Chamber of Commerce SWAT teams, no doubt funded by foreigners, are preparing attacks on the electrical grid. Paul Krugman contends that "Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House." Steve Benen explains, "We're talking about a major political party . . . possibly undermining the strength of the country -- on purpose, in public, without apology or shame -- for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012." Benen's posting was titled "None Dare Call it Sabotage."

So what is the proof of this charge? It seems to have something to do with Republicans criticizing quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. And opposing federal spending. And, according to Benen, creating "massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system."

That's incomplete, at best. Use of the phrase "seems to have something to do with" is Gerson's way of summarizing a larger argument that he may have struggled to fully understand.

So perhaps I should clarify matters.

We are, by all measures, in the midst of a fragile economic recovery. Under the circumstances, Americans very likely hope that policymakers in Washington are committed to improving economic conditions further.

It's against this backdrop that congressional Republicans have vowed to take capital out of the economy, create more public-sector unemployment, eliminate effective jobs programs, urge the Federal Reserve to stop focusing on lowering unemployment, and fight tooth and nail to protect a tax policy that's been tried for nearly a decade without success. By their own admission, GOP officials have said economic growth is not their priority; Hoover-like deficit reduction is.

While advocating this agenda, one of the most powerful Republican officials on Capitol Hill has argued, more than once, that his "top priority" isn't job creation, but rather, "denying President Obama a second term in office."

Taken together, I suggested it's time for an uncomfortable conversation. I obviously can't read the minds of GOP policymakers, but it seems at least worth talking about whether they're prioritizing the destruction of a presidency over the needs of the nation.

It's also worth emphasizing that my point about "uncertainty" was meant as a form of mockery. The right is obsessed with the debunked notion that "economic uncertainty" is responsible for the lack of robust growth, so in raising my observation, I noted that it's the Republican agenda that seems focused on adding to this uncertainty -- vowing to gut the national health care system, promising to re-write the rules overseeing the financial industry, vowing to re-write business regulations in general, considering a government shutdown, and even weighing the possibility of sending the United States into default.

What's more, I'm fascinated by the notion that I'm describing a "conspiracy" -- a word Gerson uses four times in his column. I made no such argument. There's no need for secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms; there's no reason to imagine a powerful cabal pulling strings behind the scenes. The proposition need not be fanciful at all -- a stronger economy would improve President Obama's re-election chances, so Republicans are resisting policies and ideas that would lead to this result.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wasn't especially cagey about his intentions: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.... Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."

Given this, is it really that extraordinary to wonder if this might include rejecting proposals that would make President Obama look more successful on economic policy -- especially given the fact that McConnell's approach to the economy appears to be carefully crafted to do the opposite of what's needed? After Gerson's West Wing colleagues effectively accused Democrats of treason in 2005, is it beyond the pale to have a conversation about Republicans' inexplicable motivations?

I'd hoped my original argument would generate a larger discussion, and I suppose it has to a certain extent, but it's nevertheless striking to me that Gerson's column makes no effort whatsoever to respond with anything substantive. He finds it sufficient to dismiss the very idea casually, as if the observation merits a print column, but not a policy-focused refutation.

And that's a shame. It's not uncommon for Republican media personalities to make the transition from "loyal Bushies" to sanctimonious pundits, but I'd hoped Gerson, after having several days to think about it, would come up with a more compelling, more thoughtful, argument on an issue of national importance.

My hopes, alas, were in vain.

* Update: I'd originally included an incorrect sentence in this post about Gerson on Krugman, so I removed it. Apologies.

* Second Update: Greg Sargent raises some terrific points in response to Gerson, most notably the fact that GOP leaders have, repeatedly and on the record, said "they needed to deny Obama successes for their own political purposes."

Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (71)

Bookmark and Share

TOM DELAY, CONVICTED FELON.... Late Wednesday afternoon, disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) picked up a new title: convicted felon. A New York Times editorial summarized the story nicely.

During his tenure leading House Republicans, Mr. DeLay established a new low in ethical conduct among Congressional leaders. He put family members on his campaign payroll, took lavish trips paid for by lobbyists and twisted the arms of K Street lobbyists to ante up and donate to his party's candidates and hire more Republicans. But his conviction on Wednesday came from something else entirely, a scheme to steer corporate contributions to Republicans in the Texas Legislature.

Texas bans corporations from giving money directly to state candidates, just as federal law does at the national level. But Mr. DeLay figured out a way around that barrier: In 2002, he used his state political action committee to channel $190,000 in corporate contributions to the Republican National Committee, which then donated the same amount to seven Texas House candidates.

The scheme wasn't lacking in ingenuity. Texas had completed its post-2000-census redistricting, but DeLay wasn't satisfied with the way in which state lawmakers had drawn the lines. So he hatched a plan without modern precedent, deciding to pursue re-redistricting. But in order to hatch his gambit, he'd need some more GOP allies in the Texas legislature, so he arranged to launder some corporate money into the accounts of seven Republican candidates.

Six of them won; re-redistricting occurred; and the GOP majority in Congress grew, just as DeLay had planned.

The minor flaw in all of this is that DeLay's scheme happened to be a felony, at least according to prosecutors and the members of a Texas jury. DeLay's defense was largely built around the notion that he didn't know about the money-laundering until after it had occurred, but prosecutors pointed to a 2005 interview with investigators in which the right-wing lawmaker said he was aware of the plan in advance. (DeLay later said he misspoke.)

At this point, DeLay is free on bail, leading up to his Dec. 20 sentencing. The convictions could carry a maximum penalty of life in prison, though no one considers that likely. DeLay's fate, at least in the short term, is in the hands of Senior Judge Pat Priest, who may end up giving him probation. In the meantime, of course, DeLay is appealing the ruling.

As for the larger context, it's hard not to feel a sense of schadenfreude about the developments. Tom DeLay has represented American politics at its worst -- corruption, sleaze, deception, and routine abuses of power. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, Wednesday's conviction couldn't have happened to a more appropriate person.

It's also worth noting that the political establishment's approach to DeLay was, in light of the jury's conclusion, quite wrong. We've been told for years that the case was a partisan witch-hunt, launched by a prosecutor intent on "criminalizing politics."

As of late Wednesday afternoon, the conventional wisdom on DeLay is in need of an overhaul.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 25, 2010

HAPPY THANKSGIVING.... Just a quick housekeeping note for readers checking in today. I'll be around, and will check in if something important comes up, but I don't expect to have much in the way of content today. I'll be back tomorrow morning.

Also, in light of the holiday, I thought I'd take a moment to share my thanks to all of you. I appreciate your interest, support, and encouragement, and wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving.

As for the news of the day, the White House issued President Obama's weekly address this morning, pointing to what will hopefully be a better year ahead.


Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 24, 2010

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

* Crisis on the Korean peninsula: "President Obama and South Korea's president agreed Tuesday night to hold joint military exercises as a first response to North Korea's deadly shelling of a South Korean military installation, as both countries struggled for the second time this year to keep a North Korean provocation from escalating into war."

* Obama administration succeeds in securing Israeli patience on Iran: "Some Israeli officials say the country's fingers are off the hair-trigger that would launch a strike on the Iranian nuclear program, but that convincing the United States to take a harder line on Iran remains a top national priority."

* Irish austerity: "Desperate to seal a deal for an international bailout, the government in Ireland on Wednesday unveiled a painful, four-year plan for $20 billion in spending cuts and new taxes that would slash unemployment benefits and cut welfare payments for the already hard-hit Irish public."

* Unusually good news on unemployment filings: "The number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week to the lowest level since July 2008, a hopeful sign that improvement in the job market is accelerating. The Labor Department said Wednesday that weekly unemployment claims dropped by 34,000 to a seasonally adjusted 407,000 in the week ending Nov. 20."

* President Obama takes a compelling pitch to Kokomo, Indiana.

* Nearly 70% of the allocated TARP money has been "repaid, offset with profits, or canceled."

* The Pentagon will give Congress its DADT survey results on Tuesday. The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings, including testimony from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, on Thursday and Friday.

* Remember the widely-mocked, color-coded terror-alert levels? They're on their way out.

* When has a country ever prospered by devaluing its currency? I'm glad you asked.

* Former right-wing Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating (R) will now lead the American Bankers Association. (thanks to K.G. for the tip)

* Sarah Palin is now going after First Lady Michelle Obama for trying to combat childhood obesity.

* When it comes to student loans and crushing debt, stories like Kelli Space's shouldn't even exist.

* Salon War Room blog has been counting down its Hack 30 -- a list of "the worst pundits in America." The top choice was announced this afternoon, and it's hard to argue with the selection.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

JUST IN TIME FOR THANKSGIVING.... Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) thought he'd use some floor time on the U.S. House to share his understanding on Thanksgiving history and the travails of 17th-century Pilgrims. There are, however, a few problems with his version of events. (Fired Up Missouri warns that watching Akin's video "may make you dumber.")

The far-right lawmaker believes the Pilgrims were "a great bunch of Americans," who "came here with the idea that, after trying socialism, that it wasn't going to work. They realized that it was unbiblical and it was a form of theft. So they pitched socialism out; they learned that in the early 1620s."

This is, to be sure, a popular belief among conservatives. Those rascally Pilgrims tried socialism, only to suddenly realize that it was ineffective and "unbiblical." They discovered the error of their ways and embraced the virtues of capitalism soon after.

The problem is that Akin's wrong. The New York Times' Kate Zernike had an item on this the other day, citing the work of actual historians, rather than easily-confused right-wing politicians.

In our reality, the settlers agreed to hold their property in common, not as experiment in socialism, but as a short-term decision "in the interest of realizing a profit sooner." The Pilgrims "were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism."

In the right's version, the commonly-held property led to laziness and famine. That's wrong, too: "The arrangement did not produce famine. If it had, Bradford would not have declared the three days of sport and feasting in 1621 that became known as the first Thanksgiving."

The Pilgrims ultimately moved away from the system, not because of discoveries about their "unbiblical ways," but because settlers "spoke different dialects and had different methods of farming, and looked upon each other with great wariness."

In the right's version, the Pilgrims flourished after moving away from communal property, which made the first Thanksgiving possible. In reality, the first Thanksgiving was held two years before the settlers gave up on holding their property in common.

Their production improved, not because they turned from a wicked economic system, but because the Pilgrims got better at farming crops like corn that they'd never seen before.

Brian at Right Wing Watch noted that Akin's not the only one caught up in the conservative-politically-correct myth on Thanksgiving's origins -- John Stossel and Phyllis Schlafly like the bogus version, too -- so don't be too surprised if your crazy uncle brings it up tomorrow at the dinner table.

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

IF THERE IS 'SABOTAGE,' WHAT DOES THE WHITE HOUSE DO?.... It turns out there are quite a few folks who think it's plausible congressional Republicans may be tempted to keep the economy down on purpose to advance partisan goals. Greg Sargent suggests it's time to ask the next question: if that's true, what does the White House do about it?

To be sure, finding examples of observers who find the argument itself is plausible isn't hard. As I've noted, the list includes, to varying degrees, Yglesias, Krugman, Collender, and Serwer, among others. Andrew Sullivan argued the other day that congressional Republicans are "as close to organized vandalism as one can imagine," and reiterated the point today.

Greg asked in response to all of this:

If this is the case, however, what should Obama do about it? As Sullivan rightly notes, during his first two years Obama was able to accomplish an extraordinary amount despite GOP opposition. But now Republicans are set to take over the House, and the Dems' margin in the Senate has dwindled dramatically. So what should Obama do now? What new methods should he employ to use the power of the presidency to reckon with the new, emboldened opposition?

That's obviously fair. Noting that a major political party seems willing to place partisan goals ahead of the public interest is one thing; suggesting constructive courses of action is arguably more important.

So, here are a few thoughts on the next step:

* Govern around Congress: If emboldened congressional Republicans would rather destroy the president than govern, the White House should realize it can do quite a bit without Congress. Eugene Robinson recently noted, "Obama's focus should be on using all the tools at his disposal to move the country in the direction he believes it must go." John Podesta and Dan Froomkin have pieces that flesh this strategy out -- making use of executive orders, executive regulations, etc. -- in more detail.

* Adapt negotiating styles accordingly: If White House officials sit down with the GOP leadership to negotiate, expectations matter. If the president and his team assume Republicans are prepared to work in good faith to find effective solutions to agreed-upon challenges, they may present Democratic proposals with reasonable compromises in mind. If the president and his team assume Republicans are pursuing a scorched-earth campaign, willing to sacrifice the nation's needs in the hopes of destroying the Obama presidency, the compromise proposals -- and the duration of the talks -- would hopefully be pretty different.

* Make your case explicitly: It's one thing for a party to complain about the "Party of No"; it's another level of magnitude to suggest Republicans are willing to sabotage the country's interests to improve their odds in 2012. Any White House has to be cautious about attacking rivals' motives -- though the Bush White House effectively accused Dems of treason, and faced almost no pushback -- but voters need to at least be aware of the concerns. If Democrats believe Republicans may be sabotaging the president and endangering the nation, they're going to have to say so in order to initiate some kind of public conversation.

* Be prepared to run against a "Do-Nothing Congress": It worked for Truman.

I'm sure there are other ideas. What am I missing?

Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

E COLI CONSERVATISM ISN'T GOING AWAY.... I'd really like to know how Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) mind works. Take his opposition to a food-safety bill currently pending in the Senate.

Far from offering common-sense reforms, this bill doubles-down on the status quo -- which failed to prevent the salmonella outbreak -- with 250 pages of new bureaucracy and regulations. Expanding the Food and Drug Administration will harm small businesses and raise prices at the grocery store -- all without having a meaningful impact on food safety.

Throughout the debate, proponents have claimed we haven't modernized food safety laws in 100 years. That proves my point. For the past 100 years, the free market, not the government, has been the primary driver of innovation and improved safety. Consumer choice is a far more effective accountability mechanism than government bureaucracies.

Now, I realize Coburn is one of the most right-wing senators in modern history. I also realize he reflexively opposes government regulation, even when those regulations help protect those Americans who eat food.

But his reasoning here is incoherent. Follow the logic: our existing food safety measures are inadequate ... which leads to public-health hazards ... which means we should stop trying to improve food safety measures.

By that reasoning, if I'm lax in bringing my car in for routine maintenance, and as a result my car starts to break down, it's proof that routine auto maintenance isn't a good idea.

This makes perfect sense, if you're a crazy person.

Coburn seems at least partially aware of reality. Over the summer, there was a major egg recall, following at least 1,300 salmonella-related illnesses spanning 22 states. The Washington Post reported in August that the outbreak highlights the need to fix "the holes in the country's food safety net."

That truth was hard to deny, and even harder to ignore. As we learned more about the story, we saw that the salmonella problems stemmed from an uninspected producer in Iowa, with a record of health, safety, labor, and other violations that go back 20 years. The need for better regulations and enforcement has been obvious for decades, but conservative, anti-regulatory lawmakers have consistently put industry profits above public safety.

Coburn sees all of this, and thinks, "See? I told you consumer safeguards are a bad idea."

Walid Zafar explained yesterday, "Coburn reasons that since regulation didn't prevent the salmonella outbreak, it means we need less regulation, when in fact, it means the exact opposite."

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* As expected, Minnesota state Canvassing Board agreed yesterday to start a hand recount of all 2.1 million votescast in the Nov. 2 gubernatorial election. At this point, Mark Dayton (D) leads Tom Emmer (R) by 8,770 votes.

* Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) conceded yesterday in his re-election bid, losing to Ann Marie Buerkle by 567 votes. Maffei had the option of asking for a hand recount of the more than 200,000 ballots cast, but chose to step aside instead. It brings the net gain for House Republicans to 63 seats. Buerkle, by the way, is a former spokesperson for Operation Rescue, a militant anti-choice and anti-gay organization.

* On a related note, Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) has narrowly won re-election, as vote counting yesterday showed him with an insurmountable lead over his GOP challenger, Andy Vidak.

* There are now just two unresolved U.S. House races: New York's 1st district and California's 11th district. Democratic incumbents currently lead in both contests.

* Don't be surprised if appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D), who'll give up his seat next week, becomes the 21st candidate to enter Chicago's mayoral race.

* Gentry Collins, the former RNC political director who's marveled publicly at Michael Steele's incompetence and mismanagement, will now take on his former boss in the race for the RNC's chairmanship.

* If Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) intends to stay in the Senate beyond 2012, it seems likely he'd have to seek the Republican nomination. "That's his only hope," said John Olsen, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO and a former state Democratic chairman.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share

ONLY GLENN BECK TRULY UNDERSTANDS THE TSA.... Complaints about airport security aren't really my beat, but I nevertheless enjoyed Glenn Beck's on-air tirade yesterday, in which he insisted that Americans are being forced to hate the TSA on purpose so workers would unionize and become President Obama's private army. Or something.

"I don't know what this TSA thing is. And I will tell you that Andy Stern and all his good friends, Richard Trumka and all these guys are now ratcheting up the TSA, and the TSA is now being courted by the unions. You know they are trying to unionize TSA and they are being courted by the unions. 'You need representation because people are starting to treat you poorly. If you don't if people don't take care of you, if the unions don't stand behind you, who's going to stand behind you?'

"This is as much of a play on the TSA as it is on you! Make the people hate the TSA and then the TSA employees are going to beg for somebody to protect them and represent them. And they'll run right into the arms of the union.

"You know when Barack Obama said he was creating his own private army? 'We need a private army just as well funded, just as well equipped.' There's a lot of people saying he was talking about some, I don't know, some diplomatic corps. Uh huh. Was he now? Some people say that it was AmeriCorps and whatever. It could be. I don't know what it is. I don't know what the hell this guy is doing. Nobody does. That's the point. But if you wanted to really have a security force, wouldn't a unionized TSA under the umbrella of Homeland Security be the best thing? I mean, why start a whole new security force when you already have one?"

Fact-checking Beck is an inherently silly exercise, but this notion that President Obama called for the creation of a "private army" continues to be a popular concept on the unhinged right, but it remains patently ridiculous.

Oliver Willis posted a transcript of what Obama actually said, and explained, "Obama was discussing the expansion of agencies like the foreign service and AmeriCorps, not any sort of private army -- and definitely not one comprised of unionized TSA agents."

Once in a while, I almost feel sorry for Beck's minions. Is it any wonder why they have such a twisted view of reality?

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

LOOKING FOR LEVERAGE ON NEW START.... For proponents of the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, much of the last several days have been spent trying to figure out who Senate Republicans will listen to, if anyone.

At this point, GOP opponents have blown off, if not explicitly rejected, the guidance of foreign policy experts from the Reagan and Bush eras, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the intelligence and diplomatic communities, our European allies, and the American public in general. At this point, Senate Republicans don't seem to care, though they've struggled to explain why.

But the White House hasn't given up. Realizing that the only foreign governments who actually want to see New START fail are Iran and North Korea, administration officials have reportedly begun reaching out to pro-Israel and pro-Jewish organizations, urging them to help Republicans come to their senses.

Over the last three days, three major pro-Israel organizations issued strong statements of support for New START: the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the American Council for World Jewry (ACWJ).

"We are deeply concerned that failure to ratify the new START treaty will have national security consequences far beyond the subject of the treaty itself," the ADL said in a Nov. 19 letter sent to all senators. "The U.S. diplomatic strategy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons requires a U.S.-Russia relationship of trust and cooperation."

NJDC President David Harris said this week, "To me the nexus is clear. Ratifying New START is should be a central objective of the entire pro-Israel community."

If this thinking has won over any Republicans, they're hiding it well. Yesterday, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he would vote to kill the treaty, arguing that its verification measures are inadequate. What Bond may not realize -- the often-confused conservative tends to literally sleep through classified briefings related to national security -- is that there are currently no verifications measures in place, the provisions in this treaty would have the strongest verification language ever, and if he and his party kill New START, it may be years before we're actually monitoring Russia's nuclear arsenal again.

Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

WOULD REPUBLICANS FORGO THEIR OWN HEATH CARE BENEFITS?.... Rep.-elect Andy Harris (R-Md.) caused a bit of a stir last week. The conservative incoming freshman, after running on a platform opposed to health care reform, declared that he wanted his taxpayer subsidized coverage -- and he wanted it immediately.

It's never received a whole lot of attention, but members of Congress enjoy an attractive benefits package, including extensive options and taxpayer-subsidized insurance. In light of the Harris flap, a growing number of Democrats are asking a reasonable question: why don't anti-health care Republicans put their coverage where their mouths are?

Congressional Republicans who assailed the Democrats' healthcare law in the run-up to the midterm elections are facing pressure to decline government-provided coverage when they take office. [...]

On Tuesday, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to GOP leaders signed by 60 Democrats arguing that critics of a government-backed coverage expansion should "walk that walk" and also refuse their federally subsidized coverage.

"If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk," Crowley wrote in a letter to Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "You cannot enroll in the very kind of coverage that you want for yourselves, and then turn around and deny it to Americans who don't happen to be Members of Congress."

Outside groups are getting in on the act. The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a union that is among the biggest financial backers of Democrats, on Tuesday released a statement calling on lawmakers who campaigned on repeal to put their money where their mouths are.

"If they enroll in the taxpayer-funded healthcare system provided to members of Congress, they deserve to be denounced as hypocrites," AFSCME President Gerald McEntee said. "If you campaigned for repeal, you should go without taxpayer-funded coverage first."

A handful of incoming House Republicans have accepted the challenge and vowed to refuse congressional health care benefits, but this, in turn, only increases the pressure on the rest of the caucus.

Making matters slightly worse for the GOP, a new survey from Public Policy Polling found a majority of respondents believe Republicans who ran against health care reform should, as a sign of consistency, refuse government coverage. The sentiment was especially strong among Republicans.

The GOP leadership has already said this is a non-starter, and that members will not be asked or expected to give up coverage for them and their families, but it's a safe bet the outline of 2012 attack ads are already coming together.

Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

REMEMBER THE GOP'S EARMARK BAN?.... It's been about a week since Senate Republicans agreed to impose an earmark moratorium on themselves. How's it going to so far? Not well.

Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks -- money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest -- was short-lived.

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.

Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government.

Kyl's office insists the senator's earmark isn't an earmark. It's just a specific spending provision Kyl quietly inserted into an unrelated spending bill that would direct funds to people in his state.

And to think some would have the gall to call this an "earmark."

The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. [...]

The $200 million in Kyl's measure would be used to construct and maintain a drinking water project on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, including a dam, reservoir, treatment plant and delivery pipelines.

Knowing almost nothing about this, Kyl's earmark may be entirely worthwhile, and this may very well be money well spent. That's not really the point -- Kyl just threw his support to a sweeping moratorium on earmarks, which apparently didn't quite last a week.

And the larger point is that we're likely to see this quite a bit. Bradford Plumer explained recently that "the odds that this ban ever amounts to much are pretty slim," given the fact that Senate Republicans are likely to keep doing exactly what Kyl did.

Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

ACKERMAN'S 'PUT UP, OR SIT DOWN' CHALLENGE.... For months, public opinion has been pretty steady on health care -- Americans have been convinced not to like the Affordable Care Act, but those same Americans actually like what's in it. Even many of those who like the idea of repealing the new law balk when told about the popular benefits families would lose.

This has given one Democratic House member an idea.

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) is daring Republicans to make good on one of their top legislative priorities: repealing the healthcare law.

Using a somewhat unusual tactic, Ackerman, a strong advocate for the healthcare reform law, vowed Tuesday to introduce a series of bills next week that would roll back some of the most popular provisions of the law.

The congressman said the legislation -- all titled the HIPA-CRIT (Health Insurance Protects America -- Can't Repeal IT) -- will give Republicans a chance to "put up, or sit down" on their campaign promise to repeal the eight-month-old law.

You'll notice, of course, that HIPA-CRIT, when spoken, is "hypocrite."

Touting his idea, Ackerman said, "This will be the big chance for Republicans to do what they've vowed to do. These bills will be their chance to at long last restore liberty and repeal the evil monster they've dubbed 'Obamacare.'" In his letter to his House colleagues, Ackerman practically taunted his rivals: "Go ahead, make my day. Become a cosponsor."

His plan, at this point, is for six separate votes under the HIPA-CRIT Act, forcing members to vote up or down on repealing (1) a ban on rescissions; (2) annual coverage limits; (3) lifetime coverage limits; (4) safeguards protecting adults with pre-existing conditions from discrimination; (5) safeguards protecting children with pre-existing conditions from discrimination; and (6) allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plans until age 26.

To repeal the Affordable Care Act, as so many Republicans are champing at the bit to do, would be to eliminate all of these benefits, each of which are extremely popular. Is the GOP willing to put their votes where their mouths are? Ackerman intends to find out. (This is consistent with the "repeal trap" strategy I outlined back in January.)

And as worthwhile as I think Ackerman's idea is, I can't help but wonder about one minor detail: the timing.

I don't mean to tell congressional Dems how to do their job, but wouldn't the HIPA-CRIT Act have been far more interesting if the votes were held in, say, September or October? Before, you know, the midterm elections?

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

PROJECTIONS IN NEED OF A RESPONSE.... About six months ago, the Fed made economic projections for the next couple of years. The Fed's board of governors and its regional bank presidents now have new projections, and they're slightly worse.

Unemployment is set to remain higher for longer than previously thought, according to new projections from the Federal Reserve that would mean more than 10 million Americans remain jobless through the 2012 elections - even as a separate report shows corporate profits reaching their highest levels ever.

Top Federal Reserve officials project that the unemployment rate, now 9.6 percent, will fall only to about 9 percent at the end of 2011 and about 8 percent when the next presidential election arrives, in late 2012. The central bankers had envisioned a more rapid decline in joblessness in their previous forecasts, prepared in June.

Economic news isn't all bad. Third quarter GDP was revised upwards; corporate profits certainly aren't a problem; and Neil Irwin's report added that there have been "solid readings in recent weeks on job creation, manufacturing and retail."

But the Fed's top policymakers nevertheless expect economic growth next year in the 3% to 3.6% range, which would relatively acceptable under normal circumstances, but which is wholly inadequate when trying to bounce back from a brutal recession. If these projections prove to be accurate, unemployment will be in the 8.9% to 9.1% by the end of 2011, and in the 7.7% to 8.2% range at the end of 2012.

And if the Fed's projections turn out to be a little too optimistic, as they were in June, these figures will end up being worse.

That said, it's the political response to all of this that leaves me shaking my head -- which is to say, there isn't a political response.

A discouraging report like this should, one would like to think, encourage policymakers in Washington to take steps to improve economic conditions. The Fed is effectively letting D.C. know that if Congress does nothing, we can expect tepid growth and painfully slow job growth for quite a long while.

But at this point, we'd actually be lucky if "nothing" is the worst response from Congress. Remember, congressional Republicans, by their own admission, have no plan to expand economic growth. They don't even intend to try. Their stated goals in this area include taking money out of the economy through spending cuts, focusing on deficit reduction, cutting off stimulative unemployment benefits, fighting for the same tax rates we already have, and weighing the possibly of sending the United States into default.

Ideally, policymakers would see bleak economic projections and want to try to do something. But we're so far from the ideal, we can't see it from here.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 23, 2010

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

* Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: "South Korea warned North Korea on Tuesday of 'enormous retaliation' if it took more aggressive steps after Pyongyang fired scores of artillery shells at a South Korean island in one of the heaviest attacks on its neighbor since the Korean War ended in 1953."

* For crying out loud: "For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement. But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all."

* Conditions in Ireland are deteriorating: "Political infighting engulfed Ireland on Tuesday, threatening to trigger a quick election and delay a massive EU-IMF bailout. Rebels from Prime Minister Brian Cowen's own party pressed to oust him and opposition leaders demanded an election before Christmas."

* Maybe someone should do something: "Top Federal Reserve officials expect the unemployment rate to remain around nine percent at the end of next year and eight percent at the end of 2012, according to internal forecasts that drove the central bank to take new efforts to boost the economy three weeks ago."

* Also not encouraging: "Sales of previously owned homes slipped slightly in October as the housing market struggled in the face of high unemployment and tight credit."

* When dealing with congressional Republicans, if Dems "hope for the best, and plan for the worst," they'll be on the right track.

* The dispute among Senate Republicans over ethanol subsidies continues to get even more interesting.

* The fact that incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is considered a leading Republican voice on economic policy is rather horrifying.

* Harold Pollack reports on encouraging developments in combating AIDS.

* After all this time, Marc Thiessen should probably know quite a bit more about the subjects he claims to care about.

* The Daily Caller's transition from credible to dubious to ignominious to cover-your-eyes-ridiculous was completed today.

* Daniel Luzer takes a closer look at some of the ethical issues surrounding Melanie Sloan's departure from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

* Fox News refuses to air paid advertising featuring U.S. troops, apparently because they don't like what the servicemen and women have to say about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

* And last night, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) told Sean Hannity that Republicans shouldn't "just preach to the choir with Fox [News] viewers." I'm pretty sure that's not the network's official line, but accidental candor is better than none.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

BACHMANN'S 'TEACHER'.... The New York Times had an item the other day on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and her plans for the next Congress, some of which are pretty ambitious. Reader C.W. reminded me of the significance of the last two paragraphs:

For now, [Bachmann's] plan for the caucus "is to start weekly classes on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights," inviting everyone from Supreme Court justices to legal scholars to speak.

"As we're studying every week, let's say for instance the commerce clause, then as the legislation comes before us, we can apply through the grid of the Constitution the actual legislation that we're looking at," she said. "This is a tremendous real-time forum to be able to discuss these issues ahead of time, prior to the vote, in regard to principles of the Tea Party."

When asked who'll be lead these "classes," Bachmann tends to mention the far-right members of the Supreme Court -- who may not be interested in an unpaid teaching gig at a separate branch of government -- and an evangelical activist/Glenn Beck buddy by the name of David Barton.

Who's David Barton? He became a celebrity in the religious right in the '90s, serving as a pseudo-historian trying to convince fellow activists to reject the separation of church and state. Objective analysis of Barton's materials found glaring factual errors -- which often happens when someone pretends to be a historian.

More recently, Barton helped write the absurd Texas curriculum standards, despite his lack of credentials; became a faculty member at Glenn Beck's "university"; compared Tea Party activiststo Jesus Christ; and was the subject of a fairly devastating Keith Olbermann segment.

But that's really just scratching the surface. Check out this recent report from the Minnesota Independent, and this fairly devastating critique from People for the American Way.

And remember, as far as Bachmann is concerned, this guy is qualified to "teach" members of Congress about how they should interpret the Constitution.

Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

'I CANNOT FATHOM WHY THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING'.... I think it's fair to say Norm Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, isn't exactly a raging liberal.

So when he notes in his Roll Call column that Senate Republican tactics on the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, are "unsettling and depressing," I hope Ornstein's concerns are not only harder to dismiss, but are also taken seriously.

[Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)] has long been a Senator I admire for his seriousness of purpose, his intellect, and his decency. [Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)] is a thoughtful, solid and independent conservative, a rising star in the Senate, who voted for the treaty in the Foreign Relations Committee. [Sen.-elect Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)] brings real depth and experience from his position of leadership in the House; I always found him to be one who put national interest ahead of cheap shots, at least on the international front.

I cannot fathom why they are doing what they are doing. [Reagan Administration Secretary of State George Schultz] is not exactly a wimp when it comes to dealing with Russia or threats in the world. No one understands the dynamics of global relations and America's role in the world -- much less the dangers of nuclear proliferation -- more than [Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)].

Our military leaders are not prone to wishful thinking or peace-at-any-price thinking. The stakes for America's national interest, including Iran and Afghanistan, are immense here. Please, guys, suck it up and find a way to make this work. [emphasis added]

I tend to disagree with some of Ornstein's assessments of the GOP players here -- Kyl conceded in August that he just assumed, falsely, that nuclear-site inspections were continuing while he held up New START, which does not speak well of his intellect or seriousness of purpose.

But Ornstein's larger point clearly has merit. Partisan games come and go, but we're talking about international affairs, nuclear proliferation, national security, and American credibility on the global stage. There are, in other words, some policy areas where even Republicans are supposed to be able to be grown-ups, and put the nation's needs first.

Except, that's not happening. Ornstein's good advice notwithstanding, a few too many Senate Republicans don't want to "suck it up"; they appear to want to undercut the U.S. government for partisan ends.

It's what lead Paul Krugman to sound pretty convincing when he wrote, "These days, national security experts are tearing their hair out over the decision of Senate Republicans to block a desperately needed new strategic arms treaty. And everyone knows that these Republicans oppose the treaty, not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it's an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it."

Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

THE PARTY OF 'ORGANIZED VANDALISM'.... I don't intend to belabor the point too much more, but I've been encouraged this week by the broader discussion after my "sabotage" post from Saturday.

To briefly recap, I'd noticed some commentary of late suggesting an uncomfortable point about congressional Republicans: they may be tempted to keep the economy down on purpose to advance partisan goals. Matt Yglesias, for example, said the Obama White House should be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP.

I made the case that this is worthy of discussion, which hasn't gone over well with conservatives (Michael Gerson thinks I'm an "idiot"), but which nevertheless generated some noteworthy coverage at outlets such as The Week and The Atlantic.

Paul Krugman's NYT column emphasized a related point yesterday, insisting that the Republican Party "isn't interested in helping the economy as long as a Democrat is in the White House." But similar arguments keep popping up. Here's an Andrew Sullivan item from the other day:

The ghastly truth is that we have one political party that is as close to organized vandalism as one can imagine. START, the debt ceiling, civil rights, real spending cuts and tax reform: all these will be subject to the pure nihilism of the will to power. Their goal is the destruction of Obama. That is all.

And here's Adam Serwer this morning:

[Congressional Republicans] use what power they have to prevent government from performing basic duties at any level of efficiency, and then turn around and argue that this reflects a failure of leadership on the part of the president. The pursuit of political power is more important to the party than civic responsibility. It's a testament to the power of low expectations that this hasn't produced more of an outrage, especially since they aren't even pretending otherwise.

It's interesting, in and of itself, that this sentiment has become fairly common. We are, after all, talking about prominent observers wondering aloud whether a major political party is putting its partisan hatred for an elected president ahead of the public good. There was a time such a suggestion was scandalous; now it's widespread enough to appear in a Nobel Laureate's print column in the paper of record.

For a slightly different angle, it's also worth considering Greg Sargent's take on this yesterday:

...I happen to think the "economic sabotage" argument is not going to work. Dems tried variations of this case for two years, and there's no evidence they bore any fruit. I just don't think voters will buy it, or if they do, they won't particularly care about it.

Also: At a certain point there's little percentage in making variations of the same old lament again and again that Republicans are out to defeat Obama politically at all costs and that it's folly for Obama to keep seeking bipartisan compromise. It seems like the better argument to be having at this point is over what Obama specifically should do to adjust to this new reality.

That seems fair, though I'd add that it's worth having the "sabotage" conversation, if for no other reason, than to make clear to the White House what it should expect from the president's partisan rivals.

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share

EVEN CONSERVATIVES COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CRISIS ON THE COURTS.... When it comes to confirming qualified judicial nominees, the status quo is unbefitting a mature, functioning system of government.

Republicans, engaging in tactics that no one has ever seen before, have brought the entire process to a generational standstill. It's untenable and arguably dangerous. It is no exaggeration to say the status quo is the worst it's ever been -- the Alliance For Justice recently reported that President Obama "has seen a smaller percentage of his nominees confirmed at this point in his presidency than any president in American history."

How bad is it? Ian Millhiser reports that seven Republican-appointed federal judges co-signed a letter last week, urged Senate Republicans to please allow votes on pending nominees. Their letter read:

"In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out our mission. While there are many areas of serious need, we write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges. Our need in that regard has been amply documented (See attached March 2009 Judicial Conference Recommendations for Additional Judgeships). Courts cannot do their work if authorized judicial positions remain vacant.

"While we could certainly use more judges, and hope that Congress will soon approve the additional judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference, we would be greatly assisted if our judicial vacancies-some of which have been open for several years and declared 'judicial emergencies' -- were to be filled promptly. We respectfully request that the Senate act on judicial nominees without delay."

As a rule, judges just don't take steps like these. It's a reminder of how dire the situation really is -- and how destructive Republicans' mindless recklessness has become to our system of government.

And while I realize this issue probably isn't sexy enough to generate widespread media attention, it's not just these Republican-appointed judges who've noticed the crisis on the courts. The Federal Bar Association wrote to the Senate leadership yesterday, imploring the chamber to "fulfill its constitutional responsibility" and hold votes on judicial nominees already approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This comes on the heels of the Washington Post editorial board, not exactly a bastion of liberalism, condemning Republicans for "offensive" and "unconscionable" delays on would-be judges.

Occasionally, this even trickles down to the local level. In North Carolina, the Charlotte Observer noticed that the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved hometown Judge Albert Diaz for a seat on the federal appeals bench -- 299 days ago. He can't get a floor vote, the Observer complained, because Senate Republicans won't allow one.

The status quo is simply untenable. This is no way to run a country.

Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

CORPORATE PROFITS AREN'T EXACTLY FALTERING.... Bloomberg News had an item a couple of weeks ago, reporting, "Investors around the world say President Barack Obama is bad for the bottom line."

The complaints are pretty laughable given reality.

The nation's workers may be struggling, but American companies just had their best quarter ever.

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or non-inflation-adjusted terms.

Corporate profits have been going gangbusters for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history.

The point about adjusting these figures for inflation -- in adjusted terms, corporate profits are merely fantastic, as opposed to record-breaking.

Either way, the point is corporate profits aren't exactly faltering. Indeed, this data from the Commerce Department comes a month after a related report showing profits rising faster "than during any other 18-month period since the 1920s."

It makes the "bad for the bottom line" tack look pretty silly. In fact, it's pretty ironic that those complaining about the Obama administration's alleged "anti-business" policies also happen to making money hand over fist. Corporate profits are up; all of the major Wall Street indexes are up; and private-sector job growth is up, but fat-cat conservatives and corporate lobbyists nevertheless spent the entire year furiously raising money to elect Republicans. They were, apparently, outraged by the scourge of corporate prosperity.

Kevin Drum recently had a good item on the larger political dynamic.

What's remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn't anti-business, it is fair to say that he's not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart's desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it's aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it's someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There's no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it's quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich.

And that's pretty hard for them to take. So they're apoplectic.

I think that's exactly right. I also think the political world would be wise to ignore their apoplexy.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* As the recount process continues in Minnesota's gubernatorial race, the Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday rejected Tom Emmer's (R) initial salvo on eliminating votes. The state court justices ruled just two hours after hearing the Republican's argument.

* On a related note, Emmer's opponent, Democrat Mark Dayton, has hired Al Franken's legal team from the 2008 Senate recount and subsequent litigation.

* In Alaska's still unresolved U.S. Senate race, Joe Miller (R), as expected, filed suit in state court yesterday, hoping to derail certification of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R) apparent victory.

* Hoping to fight fire with fire, David Brock and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend are setting up American Bridge, intended to counteract the outside GOP groups, including Karl Rove's American Crossroads, that boosted Republicans in the midterms.

* In Texas' 27th congressional district, incumbent Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D) conceded the race last night. The net gain for House Republicans this year now stands at 62.

* There are, for those still counting, four unresolved U.S. House races -- two in California and two in New York. For what it's worth, the Democrat leads in three of the four, but the counting continues.

* The race to take on Michael Steele for the RNC's chairmanship continues to draw would-be party leaders. Former Bush administration official Maria Cino has created a 527 entity as part of her push to seek the position.

* And don't be too surprised if failed, radical Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) tries again to reach Capitol Hill. If Rep. Dean Heller (R) launches a primary campaign against scandal-plagued incumbent Sen. John Ensign (R) in Nevada, Angle said she might run for Heller's U.S. House seat.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share

THE MEDAL OF HONOR HAS NOT BEEN 'FEMINIZED' (WHATEVER THAT MEANS).... I'm a little behind on this one, but I've been meaning to mention some of the conservative reactions to Army Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, a genuine American hero, being awarded the Medal of Honor last week.

Giunta's story is extraordinary, and it's hard to imagine anyone seriously disagreeing with the award. That Giunta is the first living service member from the Iraq or Afghanistan wars to receive the honor makes last week that much more notable.

But a prominent religious right leader was apparently unimpressed, whining that the Medal of Honor, the nation's top military award, has been "feminized."

The Army's official citation details how Giunta "exposed himself to withering enemy fire" during a daring effort to engage the enemy and extract his wounded comrades from an ambush. But Bryan Fischer, a columnist for the American Family Association who has often provoked headlines and consternation with his commentaries, read the narrative as hardly the sort of thing American soldiers were once known for.

"When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements," wrote Fischer, director of issue analysis for the AFA, a longtime lobby on the Christian right. "That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them."

"So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things, so our families can sleep safely at night?" he asked.

When Fischer faced some criticism for his bizarre complaint, he went on to argue that the Christian God honors those who inflict "massive casualties," in part because "Christianity is not a religion of pacifism."

We could note, just for the record, that Giunta directly engaged (i.e., fired at) the enemy during the ordeal, as he sought to rescue his fellow American troops, so the idea that he was not "inflicting" casualties isn't even true.

But at a certain level, the facts just don't matter anyway. We've reached the point at which prominent far-right activists can't even applaud an American war hero when he's awarded one of the nation's highest honors.

The long-held assumptions that the right somehow has the high ground when it comes to honoring and valuing the military are in desperate need of re-evaluation.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share

THE SENATE GOP'S INADVERTENT SUPPORT FOR IRAN.... Nearly all of America's international allies have offered their enthusiastic support the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START. There are, however, some foreign leaders siding with congressional Republicans. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example, is hoping the GOP succeeds.

Last week, Richard Burt, the chief U.S. negotiator for the START-1 treaty with the former Soviet Union in 1991, explained, "[T]here are only two governments in the world that wouldn't like to see this treaty ratified: the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea."

Similarly, Max Bergmann, a nuclear non-proliferation policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, has noted, "This is a pivotal moment in not just U.S.-Russia relations, but also in Iranian-Russian relations. We don't want to upset the current trajectory of where things are going, and that's exactly what Sen. Kyl threatens to do.

This is worth fleshing out in more detail, because the meaning may not be immediately obvious to everyone. Why would Iran benefit from Republicans' efforts? Elizabeth Weingarten explained this morning that solidifying U.S.-Russian ties leaves Iran even more isolated.

This past spring, Russia supported the UN Security Council Resolution to impose strict sanctions on Iran. In September, Medvedev agreed to not fulfill a standing contract of selling advanced air defense -- S-300 surface-to-air missiles -- to Iran. The contract was suspended, but not terminated. "Russia [was] willing to forgo money in order to make Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure more vulnerable to attack," explains Micah Zenko, a fellow for conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations. Russia pursued a tougher policy toward Iran in part because of the "reset" in its relationship with the U.S. This was a stark contrast to its earlier funding of Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

If the U.S. doesn't ratify New START, experts say it will prove to Russia that the U.S. can't deliver on its end of that "reset." Failing to ratify New START could mean a diminished incentive for Russia to formulate its Iran policy based on U.S. objectives, especially because Russia has both economic and geopolitical incentives for maintaining a positive relationship with Iran. Selling Iran weapons is lucrative, and positive ties with Iran means Russia has a geostrategic advantage in the region.

Even if it doesn't revive the surface-to-air missile contract, it could still back off on sanctions to Iran, and strengthen the Islamic Republic indirectly.... If foreign-policy analysts are right, waiting to ratify New START could have more serious consequences than those Republicans expect.

There's already been some evidence of Republicans' intending to sabotage the Obama administration's Iran policy, but scuttling New START would be far more serious, and have more dramatic foreign policy implications.

Given GOP rhetoric on Iran, it's tempting to think congressional Republicans wouldn't take steps to strengthen Ahmadinejad, even indirectly. And yet, here we are.

Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

AMERICANS, GOP AREN'T ON THE SAME REPEAL PAGE.... About a month ago, an Associated Press-GfK poll showed the public unhappy with the Affordable Care Act, but not in a way Republicans would like -- 37% adopted the far-right line and support a full repeal, but a nearly identical number, 36%, want revisions want reform that goes even further. These 36% aren't necessarily thrilled with the new law, but from their perspective, they want the reforms to be more expansive, not less.

Yet another poll points in a similar direction.

A majority of Americans want the Congress to keep the new health care law or actually expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The post-election survey showed that 51 percent of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44 percent want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether.

Driving support for the law: Voters by margins of 2-1 or greater want to keep some of its best-known benefits, such as barring insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. One thing they don't like: the mandate that everyone must buy insurance.

Much of the public, like a few too many members of Congress, don't fully understand the policy implications -- the mandate makes coverage for pre-existing conditions possible -- but this isn't terribly unexpected.

The more important takeaway here is that congressional Republicans seriously believe the public is with them on health care policy, and voters will reward the GOP for pushing a full repeal of the new law. The evidence is overwhelming that this just isn't the case.

Indeed, this poll is nearly identical to most of the data we've seen for months -- if you ask Americans whether they like the Affordable Care Act, they say no. If you ask Americans whether they like what's in the Affordable Care Act, they say yes. McClatchy-Marist found clear majorities favoring new protections for those with pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plan until age 26, and closing the "donut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage. Republicans have every intention of eliminating all of these provisions.

In related news, a majority of Americans also endorse the Democratic tax plan -- extending Bush-era rates only for those making less than $250,000 -- not the GOP tax plan.

So, on the Republicans' top two priorities, the public prefers the Democratic approach. It's not exactly the stuff "mandates" are made of, though I don't imagine Republican lawmakers will care.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

U.S. ECONOMIC GROWTH SLIGHTLY STRONGER THAN EXPECTED.... About a month ago, the initial estimate for third quarter economic growth, covering July through September, showed the U.S. economy expanding at 2%. Today, that number was revised in an encouraging direction, but we still clearly need to do much better.

Gross domestic product growth was revised up to an annualized rate of 2.5 percent from 2.0 percent as exports, and consumer and government spending were stronger than initially thought, the Commerce Department said in its second estimate.

Economists had expected GDP growth, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, to be revised up to a 2.4 percent pace.

By any measure, better growth is good news. The third quarter was better than the second, and consumer spending was stronger in July through September than at any point in four years. We've now had five consecutive quarters of economic growth, which, given the severity of the Great Recession that began in 2007, is a streak we haven't seen in a while. Inflation, not surprisingly, is still nowhere to be found.

But the fact remains that 2.5% growth still isn't close to what we need for a robust economic recovery, nor is it enough to start making a serious dent in the unemployment rate.

Ideally, policymakers would see a report like this and conclude it's necessary to give the economy another boost, but that's proven problematic. The Fed is making an effort, but Republicans are blasting Bernanke for trying. What's more, an emboldened GOP, with its incoming House majority, opposes any and all stimulus efforts, intends to cut off stimulative unemployment benefits, rejects the single most effective jobs program of the last two years (the TANF Emergency Fund), and expects to fight aggressively to take more money out of the economy in the form of harsh budget cuts.

And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter since the Great Recession began. The red columns show the economy under the Bush administration; the blue columns show the economy under the Obama administration.

gdp3Q2010r.jpg

Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share

GOP STILL HOPES TO KILL DREAM ACT.... Under saner political circumstances, the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) would pass easily. It was written by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), is co-sponsored by Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), was endorsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and enjoys the enthusiastic backing of most Democrats, immigrant advocates, and the Obama White House.

Alas, sanity is in short supply.

Every year, tens of thousands of young illegal immigrants graduate from American high schools, but are quickly stuck -- they can't qualify for college aid, and they can't work legally. America is the only home they've ever known -- in most cases, they were, at a very young age, brought into the country illegally by their parents -- but at 18, they have few options.

The DREAM Act provides a path to citizenship for these young immigrants -- graduate from high school, get conditional permanent residency status, go to college or serve in the military, and become eligible for citizenship.

But as Republicans have moved sharply to the right, their attitudes on the bill have shifted, too. Hatch and McCain, for example, have gone from championing the Dream Act to opposing it. And what was once a bipartisan, common-sense effort at decency has become a prime right-wing target.

Senate Republicans and their conservative allies are sharpening their attacks on the proposed DREAM Act that would provide a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, declaring it would give "amnesty" to millions -- some of them criminals.

The legislation, which would apply to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, has been overshadowed by other big-ticket items on the lame-duck congressional calendar. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are now pushing for votes on it this year.

"This is about accountability, not amnesty," said a White House official who's been closely monitoring the DREAM Act. "It will take a few Republicans to get this through Congress, but they have to realize we can't keep kicking the can down the road. They have to help govern and to solve some of the problems."

They don't want to.

The push, by the way, comes on the heels of an announcement that one of the first issues the new House Republican majority will tackle next year is an obviously unconstitutional bill to end birthright citizenship. It's as if the GOP has decided to alienate as many minority communities as humanly possible.

As for the DREAM Act, it's also worth noting Republicans may get at least a little help from a conservative Democrat. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who's said he opposes filibusters on motions to proceed, has said he'll back the Republicans' filibuster on the motion to proceed.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

A SHARP ESCALATION OF TENSIONS ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA.... If North Korea decided to lash out violently in the hopes of getting the world's attention, it worked. Kim Jung-il's regime, unprovoked, shelled South Korea this morning, killing at least two and raising tensions on the peninsula to heights unseen in years.

North and South Korea exchanged artillery fire on Tuesday after dozens of shells fired from the North struck a South Korean island near the countries' disputed maritime border, South Korean military officials said. Two South Korean soldiers were killed, 15 were wounded and three civilians were injured, said Kiyheon Kwon, an official at the Defense Ministry.

The military went to "crisis status," and fighter planes were put on alert but did not take off. South Korean artillery units returned fire after the North's shells struck South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island at 2:34 p.m., said Mr. Kwon, adding that the North also fired numerous rounds into the Yellow Sea. News reports said dozens of houses were on fire, and TV footage showed large plumes of black smoke spiraling from the island.

North Korea claims South Korea "recklessly fired into our sea area. South Korea, which is holding annual military drills, acknowledged coastal test shots, but insists no artillery crossed the border.

North Korea's attack was "strongly condemned" by the Obama administration and the British Foreign Secretary. Chinese officials, who were apparently surprised by the developments, said they're "concerned."

The escalation also follows closely on the heels of North Korea disclosing new uranium enriching facilities, suggesting the regime is expanding its nuclear arsenal that grew steadily during the Bush/Cheney years.

It also comes less than a year after 46 South Korean sailors were killed after an attack on one of its naval vessels -- violence believed to have been launched by North Korea.

South Korea, not surprisingly, considers today's attack as a significant provocation, and has raised its military alert level.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 22, 2010

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

* A calculated revelation: "North Korea showed a visiting American nuclear scientist earlier this month a vast new facility it secretly and rapidly built to enrich uranium, confronting the Obama administration with the prospect that the country is preparing to expand its nuclear arsenal or build a far more powerful type of atomic bomb."

* On a related note, North Korea officials are arguing that it's simply trying to build nuclear power plants. No one believes them.

* Ireland formally applied for a rescue package yesterday. It's likely to total $109 billion to $123 billion U.S.

* Insider trading: "The FBI raided three hedge funds in connection with a widening probe into insider trading, the Wall Street Journal said on Monday."

* Another installment of the White House White Board, this time featuring Nancy-Ann DeParle explaining the medical-loss ratio in an easy-to-understand way. (Dear WH staff, please keep doing these. Maybe they'll one day be considered the fireside chats of the Obama era?)

* If conservatives are hoping to exploit the families of victims of the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa to push for more military commissions, the right will apparently be disappointed.

* Motor Trend's Todd Lassa did a very nice job making Rush Limbaugh look like a buffoon (yes, even more so than usual).

* Add "Social Security policy" to the list of things Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pretends to understand but doesn't.

* That food safety bill we've been waiting for might still pass, but the vote has been delayed to next week.

* Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is still the target of multiple investigations, and may yet face criminal charges, but the hush money his parents paid his mistress' family has been cleared by the Federal Election Commission.

* Matt Yglesias: "Worth noting that [incoming House Budget Committee Chairman] Paul Ryan is a dangerous madman, with monetary views well to the right of Milton Friedman."

* Jon Chait referred to today's GOP this morning as "an intransigent and largely insane party."

* Edward Luce, a reporter for The Financial Times, believes there is "a greater hatred of Obama" among congressional Republican "than there is a love of American national security."

* Rebooting Buffy strikes me as a remarkably bad idea. Rebooting Buffy without Joss Whedon strikes me as a spectacularly bad idea.

* MSNBC giving Lawrence O'Donnell a show was clearly a good idea. (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip)

* I don't want to alarm anyone, but Newt Gingrich really does lie a lot.

* The number of online courses is growing rapidly. Whether these courses are any good is a separate matter entirely.

* And you may have heard rumors about the TSA "strip searching" a young boy at the Salt Lake City International Airport. The "story" made the rounds after a Drudge push, but it's total nonsense. Someday, news outlets will stop taking Drudge stories seriously, but that I'm afraid that day is nowhere in sight.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

SIDING WITH 'FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS'.... Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the outgoing chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, slammed Republicans today for siding with "foreign central banks" in debates over monetary policy.

I suppose that may sound inflammatory to some, but I don't think it's especially controversial, either. The Federal Reserve acted to (hopefully) improve the U.S. economy, a move that generated criticism from some international powerhouses, most notably China and Germany. Congressional Republican, perhaps afraid that the Fed's efforts would succeed and the American economy would benefit, said China and Germany are right, and U.S. officials are wrong.

With this in mind, Frank's concerns warrant attention.

"What's striking to me, frankly ... you said that Republicans are criticizing [Federal Reserve Chairman] Ben Bernanke. That's part of it. The Republicans are joining the Central Bank of China in attacking Bernanke. This is really distressing to me," he told Bloomberg Television's Margaret Brennan.

Republicans have recently come out against the Fed's asset-purchase program because they say it will cause a rise in inflation. Among those who have sent letters of opposition to Bernanke are Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) and several Reagan-era economic officials.

"[W]hat they're saying," Frank said Monday, "is that America as the world's leader hasn't got a right to look at our own economic needs and somehow has to defer to everybody else. And I'm appalled by that ... One argument is [that] this might lower our currency and that's unfair to China. But having China complain about currency manipulation is like being called silly by the Three Stooges."

He added that the "talk radio right wing" would be "shattering the atmosphere" if Democrats took the same position.

Does anyone seriously believe otherwise?

On a related point, David Frum would like to hear what the Fed's Republican critics would propose as an alternative to QE2. Come to think of it, so would I.

Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

IF CLIMATE DENIERS WANT TO TALK ABOUT SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY.... For all the conservative hysterics targeting evidence of global warming, this seems like a fairly significant, ignominious development.

An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.

Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.

Skip Garner, a plagiarism expert at Virginia Tech, told USA Today, "It kind of undermines the credibility of your work criticizing others' integrity when you don't conform to the basic rules of scholarship."

Yep, it kind of does.

The whole point of the original report, called the Wegman report for George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, was to cast doubt on the quality of the scholarship used by climate scientists. It was quite effective -- Republicans and other deniers seized on the findings in 2006 to attack scientists and raise public doubts about the climate crisis.

But a closer analysis of the Wegman report found that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning."

When USA Today showed the findings to other plagiarism experts characterized the evidence of wrongdoing as "fairly obvious" and "fairly shocking."

The Wegman report was requested by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Congress' most ardent pro-pollution member, who relied on the document to go after climate scientists publicly.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Republicans will not hold additional hearings on the quality of the Wegman report's scholarship. Call it a hunch.

Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

'WE NEED TO LET THE ETHANOL SUBSIDIES EXPIRE'.... Following up on an item from two weeks ago, there are two existing ethanol subsidies that are due to expire at the end of the calendar year, which means Congress may have to act during the lame-duck session to save them -- if they're to be saved.

The question is what conservative Republicans are prepared to do about it. Greg Sargent reported today that there may be "a new intra-GOP war brewing" over this issue -- by some measures, more intense than the earmark fight -- and he talked to a couple of leading far-right senators who'll likely lead the way.

Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, two leading conservative Senators who have pushed the GOP to be serious about its anti-spending rhetoric, told me they are calling on fellow Republicans to urge Congress to allow ethanol subsidies to expire -- something that could put other leading GOP Senators in an awkward spot, and could put them in the cross-hairs of the Tea Party. [...]

With billions in ethanol subsidies set to expire this year, including a 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol blenders that heaped nearly $5 billion on to the deficit last year, it appears senators DeMint and Coburn are dead serious about pressing the point.

Neither conservative left much in the way of wiggle room. DeMint said supporters of the subsidies are "just protecting a parochial interest ahead of the national interest." Coburn added a continuation of the subsidies would be the opposite of what the Tea Party base wants from the GOP.

I continue to think this will be fun to watch. On the one hand, congressional Republicans inclined to do what corporate lobbyists tell them to do, and the lobbyists naturally want the industry subsidies to continue. The American Future Fund is a shadowy right-wing group that raised all kinds of secret money to help Republicans win midterm elections, and it just so happens to have been created in large part by a wealthy executive of an ethanol producer. It's a safe bet he'll expect his GOP friends to repay his assistance.

On the other, the subsides are expensive, unnecessary, and ultimately counter-productive, and a prime target for anyone who cares even a little about spending cuts.

Also watch to see the extent to which this divides the GOP caucus. With earmarks, the vast majority of Republicans weren't willing to stick their necks out and reject the base's demands. But high-profile senators like Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are in a much tougher spot -- they want to prove their fiscal conservatism, but they've been strong supporters of subsidies like these for years. Iowans, in particular, expect Grassley to deliver.

I continue to think this could be a carefully-applied wedge, driving divisions between the party's activists and the party's corporate benefactors. That is, if Dems play it right.

As for the Democratic strategy on this, as far as I can tell, their attention is elsewhere and there is no game plan in place. One possibility is of Dems to kick the can down the road a bit -- extending the subsidies for, say, six months -- and letting the next Congress deal with the issue.

Or better yet, Dems can simply allow the subsidies to expire this year, and let the next Congress decide whether to resuscitate them. I'd look forward to seeing how the far-right GOP House majority deals with an issue like this one.

Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

MANDATED HYPOCRISY.... A couple of weeks ago, Ezra Klein had a helpful summary, noting the historical trajectory of the debate over health care reform in America. The significance of the evolution in Republicans' thinking still matters.

To briefly summarize, when Truman tried to pass what was, in effect, Medicare for all, Republicans balked and said they preferred a more market-based pay-or-play system. When Clinton endorsed the market-based pay-or-play system, Republicans balked again, saying that they preferred a mandate/subsidies kind of system. When Obama endorsed the mandate/subsidies system crafted by Republicans in the '90s and adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Republicans balked again, this time saying they don't want to address the problem at all.

But it's that mandate that continues to be the key area of interest. It was, whether conservatives like it or not, a Republican idea, eventually (grudgingly) incorporated into the Democratic proposal. And yet, it was the central point of a court filing last week filed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional.

The Kentucky Republican filed the brief last week in federal court in Florida, arguing that the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is unconstitutional because it gives Congress too much power to regulate citizens' activities. Thirty-one fellow Senate GOPers joined him. The rest did not.

"Where, as in this case with respect to the PPACA's Individual Mandate, Congress legislates without authority, it damages its institutional legitimacy and precipitates divisive federalism conflicts like the instant litigation," argues the senators in the brief. "The long term harms that the PPACA may do to our governmental institutions and constitutional architecture are at least as important as are the specific consequences of the PPACA."

The Huffington explores an interesting angle to this: the brief was endorsed by 32 Senate Republicans, led by McConnell. But the article explores why the other nine GOP senators decided to withhold their support -- and the fact that some of them don't want to talk about it.

What I find especially noteworthy, though, are double-dippers -- those Republicans who endorsed (and in several cases, co-sponsored) legislation to make an individual health care mandate the law of the land, but nevertheless signed onto McConnell's brief declaring an individual health care mandate unconstitutional.

It's quite a motley crew: Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and John Thune (R-S.D.). All seven supported the individual mandate, right up until Democrats agreed with them, at which point they decided their own idea was unconstitutional. (My personal favorite is Grassley, who proclaimed on Fox News, during the fight over Obama's plan, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandate.")

I realize that congressional Republicans are just lashing out wildly, and aren't concerned about niceties like intellectual consistency, but if you're going to co-sponsor legislation on an individual mandate, it takes a fair amount of chutzpah to turn around and sign McConnell's brief.

Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

TWO SPONSORS, ONE DEBATE, NO CANDIDATES, AND PLENTY OF COMPLAINTS.... I continue to think speculation about the 2012 presidential race is kind of silly, but the fact remains that early in the new year, the GOP field will begin to take shape. And with that in mind, NBC and Politico announced two weeks ago that they will co-host the first debate for Republican presidential candidates in spring 2011 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif.

There are already complaints about the event, not because it's launching the campaign so early, but because a growing number of Republicans disapprove of the media sponsors.

Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for example, proclaimed yesterday that he would refuse to participate if Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews were asking questions of candidates. "I'd be glad to do it at the Reagan library but without the kind of Mickey Mouse questions asked by hostile news media," Gingrich said.

This appears to be an increasingly common sentiment.

Conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, in fact, penned a widely-circulated column in which he told probable GOP candidates to "just say no to Nancy Reagan".

"Can we be honest? They are all liberals. All of them. Not one of the questioners that could or would be proposed by Politico or NBC would be remotely in touch with the cares, concerns, and passions of the GOP's primary electorate," wrote Hewitt.

The Daily Caller's report went on to note that Grover Norquist disapproves of "nitpicking from left-of-center journalists asking questions that will impress their fellow journalists." Far-right activist Brent Bozell was similarly displeased: "When, oh when will Republicans learn? Every four years the presidential debate season takes place. Republicans dutifully line up for debates moderated by liberal 'moderators' except there's nothing moderate about these moderators who mercilessly attack them."

Just at the surface, blasting NBC News and Politico as "liberal" seems pretty silly. MSNBC has some liberal hosts in primetime, but NBC News itself doesn't appear to have any political agenda to speak of. Politico, meanwhile, appears to me to lean pretty clearly in Republicans' favor.

Indeed, in 2007, there was an NBC/Politico event, and the moderators were practically deferential towards the candidates, asking one softball after another.

That said, I don't much care either way whether the event takes place, or whether anyone shows up. What's more interesting to me is the competing partisan standards. A year before the 2008 presidential election, you may recall, Fox News was scheduled to host a debate for Democratic presidential candidates. The highest-profile Dems quickly balked at participating in an event aired and organized by a Republican propaganda outlet, and the debate was scrapped.

But it was the reaction from the right that stood out. Bill O'Reilly compared Democratic presidential campaigns to Goebbels; Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes said Dems were guilty of "Stalinism"; and Fox News president Roger Ailes argued in all seriousness, "The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Qaeda."

And yet, here we are. Republicans are complaining about an NBC/Politico event, and at this point, aren't facing any pushback at all.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE GOP TO TARGET BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.... The 112th Congress won't waste any time getting right to some misguided initiatives.

As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.

There are a few ways to look at this, but let's first consider the substance. As you've probably heard, the 14th Amendment says, in effect, that if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born American citizen. There's very little wiggle room in the language, and Supreme Court precedents are clear. Conservatives don't care for this, of course, because of immigration -- if a couple is in the U.S. illegally and have a baby, that couple's child is an American citizen.

And so those who consider themselves "constitutional conservatives" want to push, early in the new year, a measure that appears to violate the Constitution rather blatantly.

But before any such effort could get struck down by the courts, the bill would have to get through the Senate and its Democratic majority, and pick up President Obama's signature, neither of which seems even remotely likely. House Republicans, in other words, intend to push a misguided culture-war bill right out of the gate in 2011, knowing full well that they're simply wasting time.

And that in turn raises the larger question of how, exactly, Republicans intend to use their new House majority. Common sense suggests GOP leaders would want to get off on the right foot, tackling issues that Americans care about, proving that they're serious about policymaking, even if it is far-right policymaking.

By all appearances, that's not going to happen.

It's going to be a long two years.

Steve Benen 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

BOEHNER STRUGGLES TO FIND 'ADULTS' WITHIN HIS PARTY.... Incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is well aware of the fact that his chamber is going to have to extend the federal debt limit. Late last week, he noted that's already "made it pretty clear" to his own caucus that Republicans are "going to have to deal with it as adults." He added, "Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part."

How's that working out so far? Not too well.

Rep.-elect Bill Johnson of Ohio said those who ran on such messages didn't intend to reverse themselves now. "Most of us agreed that to increase the limit would be a betrayal of what we told voters we would do," he said. GOP leaders hope to package a debt-limit vote with significant spending cuts, making it easier for Republicans to vote for it. But it isn't clear that will be enough for many of the GOP freshmen.

What's fascinating about this to me is the twisted notion of popular support. If lawmakers balk and refuse to raise the debt limit, the United States goes into default, signaling to the world that the country isn't in a position to repay its debts. U.S. treasuries, considered the safest investment on the planet, would no longer have the backing of the full faith and credit of the United States. The result is a government shutdown -- and quite possibly a massive catastrophe.

And as far as guys like Bill Johnson are concerned, the electorate will be fine with all of this.

Also note the likelihood of an extortion/hostage dynamic. To hear the Ohio freshman put it, Republicans may tell the White House, "Slash spending the way we want or the global economic system gets it right between the eyes." But also note the next sentence in that paragraph -- even if the president paid the ransom, some Republicans still may not be willing to do the right thing.

It's not just the House, either. Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R) of Utah has vowed to oppose any efforts to raise the debt ceiling. Told that his approach would likely create a global disaster, Lee said, "That presupposes that we continue spending at unsustainable rates. I'm not going to vote to increase the debt ceiling."

The incoming House Speaker wants his fellow Republicans to act like "adults"? That sounds like a good idea, but the child-to-grown-up ratio in the GOP caucuses suggests Boehner's challenge isn't going to be easy.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The U.S. Senate race in Alaska isn't wrapping up quite yet, with a federal judge announcing late Friday that he's halting the certification of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R) write-in victory. The court didn't rule on the merits, but paused the process until a state court could hear Joe Miller's (R) case. With that in mind, Miller will likely go to state court in Alaska today.

* Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), apparently unconcerned with alienating Murkowski further, is still pushing far-right activists to send money to Miller to help pay for his lawsuits.

* The latest count shows Rep. Tim Bishop (D) inching ahead of GOP challenger Randy Altschuler in their still unresolved U.S. House race on Long Island. The final outcome is still probably weeks away.

* Speaking of lingering House races, Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.), perhaps best known for being ambushed on video by Republican operatives earlier this year, conceded defeat the other day. The incumbent lost to anti-Muslim nurse Renee Ellmers.

* The Virginia Republican Party will choose its 2012 Senate candidate in a primary, rather than at a state convention. This will likely improve former Sen. George Allen's (R) odds.

* Maryland's gubernatorial race was home to one of the year's ugliest voter-suppression schemes. Former Maryland governor Bob Ehrlich (R), the intended beneficiary, doesn't want to talk about the controversy.

* Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) will replace Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) as the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

* Former senator and presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun (D) has entered Chicago's mayoral race, making the competitive contest that much more crowded.

* In 2012 news, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) both made it sound as if they're not running for president, but few actually believe them.

* And on a related note, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested yesterday she's done seeking elected office altogether.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE GOP QUIETLY EYEING ETHICS OFFICE FOR ELIMINATION.... The last time Republicans had a congressional majority in either chamber, the results weren't pretty -- the infamous "culture of corruption," especially in the House, ended up putting members of Congress literally behind bars. The widespread misconduct very likely contributed to the Democratic wave of 2006.

Most voters have probably forgotten all about this, or for those who do remember GOP corruption, at least hope Republicans won't go back to their nefarious ways. But just a few weeks after the midterm elections, one of the first orders of business appears to be Republicans quietly eyeing the elimination of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Despite publicly promising more transparency and disclosure of the inner workings of Congress, behind closed doors, the GOP leadership has made moves indicating the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) may be targeted for cuts or extinction.

According to an email seen by ABC News, Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., called the OCE on Friday, Nov. 5, just three days after the midterm elections in which Republicans regained a majority and control of the House. During that phone conversation, ABC's source said, the California representative asked for justification of its continued existence.

A 22-member transition team has been convened to craft operating rules for the new GOP-led House, but it's worth noting that some of the members of this team -- most notably Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and John Campbell (R-Calif.) -- have themselves been targets of ethics investigations.

To clarify, the Office of Congressional Ethics is tasked with reviewing complaints against lawmakers, and deciding whether to refer the disputes to the House ethics committee (technically, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) for investigation. If Republicans shut down OCE, the process of holding members accountable for ethics transgressions would either have to be immediately replaced with a new system, or the process would simply cease to function.

It's not surprising, of course, that some Republicans would want to scrap the office; one assumes arsonists would want to shut down fire departments, too. But the effort, if it proceeds, should send quite a message to voters about GOP priorities -- the party promised to change the way Congress operates, but voters may not have realized that meant making it easier for representatives to get away with ethics violations.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

KRUGMAN FEARS 'MAKING AMERICA UNGOVERNABLE'.... I'd noticed recently that some credible political observers have been making the same uncomfortable point about congressional Republicans: they may be tempted to keep the economy down on purpose to advance partisan goals.

Matt Yglesias, for example, said the Obama White House should be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage." Budget expert Stan Collender has predicted that Republicans perceive "economic hardship as the path to election glory." Paul Krugman noted in his column last week that Republicans "want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House."

I tied all of this together in an item on Saturday, noting that their collective points are at least worthy of discussion. The response from the right was less than kind -- the post generated far more conservative anger than I'm usually accustomed to dealing with. (My personal favorite: Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson passing along a message on Twitter calling me an "idiot.")

That's fine, of course; criticism is just part of the job. It's obviously a provocative argument, and I didn't expect conservatives to like it. I'm not entirely sure why the right was more angered by me than by Krugman, Collender, and Yglesias, but I suppose I should be flattered by the attention.

With all of this in mind, I was glad to see Paul Krugman return to the general subject in his print column today, embracing a line similar to mine. In fact, Krugman seemed at least as intemperate about the issue as I was, insisting that the Republican Party "isn't interested in helping the economy as long as a Democrat is in the White House."

The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it's doing the governing. And that party now controls one house of Congress, which means that the country will not, in fact, be governable without that party's cooperation -- cooperation that won't be forthcoming. [...]

On one side, Republicans oppose just about everything that might reduce structural deficits: they demand that the Bush tax cuts be made permanent while demagoguing efforts to limit the rise in Medicare costs, which are essential to any attempts to get the budget under control. On the other, the G.O.P. opposes anything that might help sustain demand in a depressed economy -- even aid to small businesses, which the party claims to love.

Right now, in particular, Republicans are blocking an extension of unemployment benefits -- an action that will both cause immense hardship and drain purchasing power from an already sputtering economy. But there's no point appealing to the better angels of their nature; America just doesn't work that way anymore.

And opposition for the sake of opposition isn't limited to economic policy. Politics, they used to tell us, stops at the water's edge -- but that was then.

These days, national security experts are tearing their hair out over the decision of Senate Republicans to block a desperately needed new strategic arms treaty. And everyone knows that these Republicans oppose the treaty, not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it's an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it.

There's that word again, "sabotage."

To be sure, I'm not saying my point has merit because Paul Krugman is on the same page. As far as I know, the Nobel Laureate and I might both be, to use Gerson's word, "idiots."

But after a weekend of unpleasant criticism from the right, I find it fairly reassuring to know Krugman and I are thinking along the same lines.

Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share

BUFFETT ISN'T BUYING GOP LINE ON TAX CUTS.... I wouldn't necessarily characterize Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett as someone with enormous political influence, but his success in business has at least given him some credibility on the economy.

And right now, his message on taxes couldn't be much clearer.

In an exclusive interview on "This Week," Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, told Christiane Amanpour that the rich should be paying more taxes and that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should be left to expire at the end of December.

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett said. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

The full Buffett interview will air on a special Thanksgiving edition of "This Week" focused on The Giving Pledge, a major philanthropic effort spearheaded by Buffet, and Bill and Melinda Gates.

What about the line that Clinton-era rates for the wealthy would undermine the economy?

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.

I'll look forward to Glenn Beck's expose, characterizing Buffett as a radical Marxist, hell bent on destroying the economy.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

WILD, WILD WEST.... Last week's episode of "Meet the Press" featured an interview with a Democrat, an interview with a Republican, and a four-person roundtable featuring three conservatives and a journalist. (The Republican guest, by the way, was John McCain, who appears on the show so often, he's had his mail forwarded to the green room.)

This week's episode was similar: an interview with a Democrat, an interview with a Republican, and a four person roundtable featuring two conservatives, a journalist, and a vaguely center-left author.

But that's really only part of the problem. Only one lawmaker was included on the program, and given who received the invitation, it's hard to imagine what the bookers were thinking.

[Yesterday] morning on NBC's Meet the Press, Rep.-elect Allen West (R-FL) somewhat puzzlingly joined the show's panel, which also featured Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, author and reporter Richard Wolffe, and the New York Times' Robert Draper. West is not yet a member of Congress, and is known mostly for his history of extreme statements targeting Islam, liberals, women -- all issues host David Gregory chose not to explore with West, instead asking him somewhat banal questions about things like TSA screenings and a possible Sarah Palin candidacy. [...]

If Meet the Press is going to ask extremists like Allen West to offer political analysis, it's their responsibility to let viewers understand West's philosophy clearly, so they can consider his views in the proper context.

That seems more than reasonable.

West's inclusion on the panel is just bizarre. If the name seems familiar, West first gained notoriety during his military service in Iraq, when he was forced to retire from the Army for engaging in abusive interrogation techniques. More recently, he incorporated violent rhetoric into his campaign speeches, and made demonstrably ridiculous claims about his own background. Last month, we learned about West's ties to a violent gang of criminals, which the Justice Department believes is involved in drug running, arson, prostitution, robbery, and murder.

Soon after his election, West announced his choice to be his chief of staff: a right-wing radio talk-show host who hates immigrants, hates Muslims, and has raised the prospect of an armed insurrection against the United States government. (The host soon after said she would not join West's staff after all, but the fact that she was hired in the first place told us a great deal about the congressman-elect's judgment.)

Under saner circumstances, West would be considered a fringe crackpot. Under our circumstances, West is an invited guest on "Meet the Press" -- before he even casts a vote -- where he faced no scrutiny for his borderline-dangerous background.

I realize finding guests the Sunday before a major holiday might be difficult, but "Meet the Press" has to have higher standards than this, doesn't it?

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

PENTAGON MOVES UP DADT SURVEY RELEASE.... With U.S. military leaders increasingly at odds with congressional Republicans over a variety of defense-related policies, it's worth remembering New START isn't the only point of contention.

The Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs also want to see the GOP drop their filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act, a spending bill that funds U.S. troops, including its provision on repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. To that end, the Pentagon is expediting -- just a little -- the release of its DADT survey.

Signaling the growing seriousness of the Obama administration's commitment this year to ending the military's ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, the Defense Department said Sunday that it will release a long-awaited report on the matter earlier than planned because senators are eager to vote on whether to repeal the policy.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered the report to be released on Nov. 30, one day earlier than planned, "to support Congress's wish to consider repeal before they adjourn," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Sunday. [...]

Gates "has instructed his staff, without cutting any corners, to have everything ready a day sooner because he wants to ensure members of the Armed Services Committee are able to read and consider the complex, lengthy report before holding hearings with its authors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Morrell said in a statement.

Now, a fair amount of the report's findings have already been leaked, and based on these accounts, it appears the Pentagon found that servicemen and women are comfortable with ending the existing DADT policy, and that its repeal would not undermine military readiness, unit cohesion, or morale.

But Senate leaders, most notably Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), have promised a hearing to review the results of the Pentagon's findings -- results that some Senate Republicans have said will dictate whether they allow the chamber to vote on the troop-funding bill as-is or not.

The hope, apparently, is that by giving senators an additional day, the chamber will have a little more time to read the report, hold a hearing, and vote on the bill. And the larger point, of course, is that Pentagon leaders really want to see the Senate get this done fairly soon -- as in, during the lame-duck session.

To date, Senate Republicans have been inclined to ignore the military leaders' pleas. After Nov. 30, that may prove to be more difficult.

Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE WEEKEND.... We covered quite a bit of ground over the weekend here at Political Animal. Here's a recap of what we covered.

On Sunday, we talked about:

* U.S. military leaders and Republican leaders on the Hill are increasingly at odds over key defense-related policies, and GOP foot-dragging on New START ratification is making the differences even starker.

* President Obama has adopted a far-less contentious tone with Senate Republicans over national security than George W. Bush did in his second year in office.

* Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) insists she's a voracious reader. That seems hard to believe, and the dubious claim is probably unnecessary anyway.

* Congressional Republicans fully intend to go after the Affordable Care Act, but intra-party differences remain over whether to pursue "full" or "partial" repeal.

* Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he'd withhold support for New START unless it had the backing of our "allies throughout Europe." Good news: Europe desperately wants to see the treaty ratified.

* Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is convinced an individual health care mandate is "clearly unconstitutional." This is the same Orrin Hatch who co-sponsored legislation to create an individual health care mandate.

* The presidential nominee's wishes notwithstanding, the McCain-Lieberman '08 ticket just wasn't going to work out.

And on Saturday, we talked about:

* Krugman, Collender, and Yglesias have all argued congressional Republicans may try to keep the economy down on purpose to advance partisan goals. I argued it's worthy of discussion (and you wouldn't believe the hate-mail I received in response).

* Some moderate Republicans want their party to take global warming seriously. I'm afraid they're a little late.

* In "This Week in God," we covered quite a bit of ground, including Pope Benedict XVI making the case that governments have a moral responsibility to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens.

* Mike Huckabee seems a little confused about separation of powers.

* Congress could privatize TSA screeners at airports, but it wouldn't make any difference.

* On New START, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) urges his Republican colleagues, "Do your duty for your country." I don't think they're listening.

* A couple of unexpected GOP votes may be available on DADT repeal, but their support would come at a high lame-duck price.

Steve Benen 7:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 21, 2010

THE ONGOING SPLIT BETWEEN GOP AND MILITARY LEADERS.... It wasn't too long ago that there were certain expectations about political and military policy. If, in the midst of two wars, the Pentagon asked Congress for some help, lawmakers were likely to oblige. This was especially true of Republicans, who took pride in characterizing themselves as the "pro-military" party.

This week, we received yet another reminder that these partisan assumptions are in need of revision.

An unusual split has opened between conservative Republicans and the American military leadership over the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty, with current and former generals urging swift passage but politicians expressing far more skepticism.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) "essential to our future security." Retired generals have been so concerned about getting it ratified that some have traveled around the country promoting it.

Seven of eight former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces have urged the Senate to approve the treaty.

But five Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in a recent report that New START was "a bad deal." They added that U.S. military leaders had made assumptions about the pact -- including that Russia will honor it -- that are "optimistic in the extreme."

Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Foundation's grass-roots lobbying arm is targeting Republican senators with mailings warning that the treaty "benefits Russia's interests, not ours."

Retired Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, the former deputy commander of U.S. nuclear forces, told the Washington Post that it's "puzzling" that the advice military leaders are giving Republicans is being "ignored." Jameson added, "I don't know what that says about the trust that people have and the confidence they have in our military."

Democrats, I suspect, aren't willing to make the case in these terms, but that's why it's all the more important when someone like Jameson is making these arguments publicly. He's effectively arguing that most Senate Republicans are blowing off the judgment of America's military leadership -- a charge that used to be unthinkable.

But what's especially noteworthy here is the consistency in which we've seen this pattern. On New START, obviously, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense are actively urging Senate ratification, but the GOP is convinced they're mistaken. Mullen, Gates, and other military leaders also want to see Republicans end their filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act, but the GOP is ignoring this request, too.

In fact, the U.S. military leadership and congressional Republicans are also on opposite sides of everything from civilian trials for terrorist suspects to closing the facility at Guantanamo Bay to Iran to torture to how the U.S. perceives the Middle East peace process in the context of our national security interests. GOP lawmakers haven't even fared well on some veterans' groups congressional scorecards.

The notion of Republicans siding with the military is supposed to be one of those assumed truths that we're all supposed to just accept. But over the last two years, on most of the major policy disputes related to national security and defense, it's been Democrats (on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue), not Republicans, who've been siding with U.S. military leaders.

Those old partisan assumptions just don't apply anymore.

Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share

A TALE OF TWO TONES.... Not long after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a variety of Democratic lawmakers proposed creating the Department of Homeland Security. George W. Bush, at least initially, balked, fearing a cabinet agency would lead to more oversight.

In time, Bush reversed course, and embraced the idea. But when it came to labor laws and the new DHS, the White House and the Democratic Senate majority were on opposite sites. As the dispute intensified, Bush ultimately gave a speech on Sept. 23, 2002, insisting, "The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

The remarks are perhaps best remembered for prompting then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), infuriated by the president's accusation, to just about blow a gasket.

Eight years later, Dana Milbank reflects on the incident while noting that it's Republicans who are "blocking a Senate vote on a treaty with Russia that is critical to securing loose nukes and keeping Iran from gaining the bomb."

For Democrats, the opposition's gamesmanship with security should present an opportunity. Republicans seem to have entered a post-post-9/11 era, in which national security is no longer a higher priority than their interest in undermining President Obama. There's no need to resort to the demagoguery once used against Democrats, but neither would it hurt the White House and congressional Democrats to point out that their opponents are trying to weaken Americans' security. [...]

Let's start with START, the proposed nuclear pact with Russia that Senate Republicans such as Jon Kyl (Ariz.) are attempting to derail, at least until the next Congress. Since the expiration of the previous START treaty last December, there have been no U.S. inspectors in Russia to keep an eye on the country's thousands of nuclear warheads. If the Senate doesn't come up with the 67 votes needed for ratification, says Travis Sharp of the Center for a New American Security, there's a risk Russia will retaliate by removing its logistical support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, abandoning its cooperation in preventing nuclear proliferation, and thwarting U.S. efforts to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. [...]

To borrow Bush's phrase, are Republicans not interested in the security of the American people?

Milbank suggests if the situations were reversed, and Democrats were blocking a nuclear arms treaty negotiated by Bush, the Republican president would not only be questioning Dems' motives, but Republicans "would no doubt be running ads juxtaposing Democrats with Osama bin Laden, or alleging, as they did then, that Democrats are giving 'comfort to America's enemies.'"

That isn't happening, obviously. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that the Obama White House and Democrats in general just don't play the game this way. But the other part of this is that it wouldn't necessarily have the same kind of impact -- in 2002, national security was arguably the preeminent issue of the day. In 2010, three years after the start of the Great Recession, the economy is not only paramount, but most Americans probably haven't heard much, if anything, about New START or Republican tactics on the issue. If Obama said Republicans "aren't interested in the security of the American people," few would have any idea what he was referring to.

And so we hear a very different tone. Eight years ago, Bush said Democrats don't care if we live or die. Yesterday, President Obama said of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), "I believe that Senator Kyl wants a safe and secure America, just like I do, and is well-motivated." Obama added, "Senator Kyl has never said to me that he does not want to see START ratified. ... What he said is, is that he just felt like there wasn't enough time to get it done in the lame duck. And I take him at his word."

That's a degree of graciousness Kyl almost certainly doesn't deserve, and one Bush never even considered.

Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

AN UNLIKELY VORACIOUS READER.... The New York Times' Sunday magazine has a lengthy piece from Robert Draper today on a certain former half-term governor. The piece covers quite a bit of ground -- and should probably dispel any lingering doubts about Sarah Palin's national ambitions -- but a couple of things stood out.

Palin was asked, for example, about why she initially ran in Alaska as someone interested in bipartisanship, but then abandoned that approach. As Palin sees it, she learned a lesson "when John McCain chose me for the nomination for vice president."

"[W]hat it showed me about the left: they go home," she said. "It doesn't matter what you do. It was the left that came out attacking me. They showed me their hypocrisy; they showed me they weren't willing to work in a bipartisan way. I learned my lesson. Once bitten, twice shy. I will never trust that they are not hypocrites until they show me they're sincere."

So, in Palin's mind, she doesn't want to work with Democrats because Democrats criticized a Republican candidate during a competitive presidential campaign. I get the sense that Palin may not fully appreciate the meaning of the word "hypocrisy."

But it was an exchange towards the very end of the piece that was probably the most memorable.

Palin became testy when I asked her about the books I heard she had been reading. "I've been reading since I was a little girl," she snapped. "And my mom is standing 15 feet away from me, and I should put her on the phone with you right now so she can tell you. That's what happens when you grow up in a house full of teachers -- you read; and I always have. Just because -- and," she continued, though in a less blistering tone, "I don't want to come across sounding caustic or annoyed by this issue: because of one roll-of-the-eye answer to a question I gave, I'm still dealing with this," she said, referring to her interview with Katie Couric.

"There's nothing different today than there was in the last 43 years of my life since I first started reading. I continue to read all that I can get my hands on -- and reading biographies of, yes, Thatcher for instance, and of course Reagan and the John Adams letters, and I'm just thinking of a couple that are on my bedside, I go back to C.S. Lewis for inspiration, there's such a variety, because books have always been important in my life." She went on: "I'm reading [the conservative radio host] Mark Levin's book; I'll get ahold of Glenn Beck's new book -- and now because I'm opening up," she finished warily, "I'm afraid I'm going to get reporters saying, Oh, she only reads books by Glenn Beck."

Isaac Chotiner, noting the same paragraphs, asked, "Does anyone find this remotely believable?"

Put me down for a "no." It sounds like the books Palin happens to have on her bedside are intended to score carefully chosen political points -- a Thatcher biography, C.S. Lewis, the letters of a founding father, and "of course" Reagan, as if it's to be assumed that conservatives are reading a biography of the 40th president at all times.

But more importantly, it's the defensive qualities of her response that stand out. Likely presidential candidates aren't usually so worried about perceptions of their intellect that they're tempted to tell journalists to check with their parents about their reading habits as a child.

I don't imagine Palin would care about my advice, but my suggestion would nevertheless be to just stop trying, because it's probably a pointless exercise anyway. Those who've watched Palin and been unimpressed aren't going to believe she's a voracious reader, and those who worship her don't care about her conspicuous unintelligence.

Palin has worked hard to cultivate an image as a "regular" person. She's never been about book learnin'; Palin is about shooting from the hip with folksy tweets and semi-coherent Facebook posts.

"I continue to read all that I can get my hands on"? I can appreciate why Palin may want to improve her reputation, but this is both literally unbelievable and entirely pointless.

Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (75)

Bookmark and Share

FULL VS. PARTIAL VS. NEITHER.... Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the incoming House Majority Leader, gave a speech in Virginia yesterday, assuring several hundred state GOP leaders that the party won't "compromise" on its principles. According to a Roll Call report, Cantor also vowed to push "a full repeal of the health care reform bill."

"Many in the press have asked all of us and have asked me as the next Majority Leader in Congress whether we're actually going to work with President Obama next year. And my answer is: not if the President continues to support deficits into the trillions that will burden our children and theirs," he said.

"If he continues to insist to support Obamacare that threatens to bankrupt this Commonwealth and this country," Cantor continued, "we will all stand up and say no."

Just at the surface level, it seems Cantor is still oddly confused. It was, after all, his Republican Party that created the budget mess in the first place. For that matter, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit Cantor claims to be so worried about. Repealing it would make the budget mess worse, not better. After all this time and debate, even Cantor should be able to grasp these basic details.

But putting all of that aside, it's interesting that Cantor spoke about "a full repeal," at least according to the Roll Call report. Because just the other day, Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), who's likely to chair the House Rules Committee in the next Congress, said a "full" repeal isn't really the plan. He told NPR on Friday:

"We have said all along that we want to make sure that provisions there that are in fact beneficial in ensuring that people have access, without a huge expansion of government, we don't want to repeal."

The accuracy of this assessment depends on how Dreier defines "we." Dreier, for example, signed a petition demanding a full repeal, which makes his remarks about what the position has been "all along" rather amusing.

But the inconsistency is much broader than just a couple of confused conservative lawmakers. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) told her fans earlier this year, "You better believe it, baby.... We're about repealing all of Obama-care." Around the same time, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) conceded, "We're not gonna repeal everything." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has demanded "100 percent repeal of Obamacare," while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he's really only interested in repealing the "egregious parts."

This might get a little messy. The thinking all along has been that the Republican drive to gut the entire system may ultimately lead to a government shutdown, but it's also worth watching to see the intra-party dispute among GOP officials themselves.

If I had to guess, I'd say the party's far-right base won't be pleased if Republicans only pursue a "partial" repeal. As Josh Marshall noted awhile back, "After all, if it's really the end of the universe, America and Apple Pie, as Republicans have been suggesting, it's hard to say you just want to tinker at the margins."

GOP leaders have put themselves in an awkward spot. Not only would they have to fight to repeal popular provisions Americans actually want, but they have to work around their own rhetorical record. Republicans who've characterized the law as "Armageddon" may grudgingly come to believe some parts of Armageddon may not be that bad after all.

Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

EUROPEAN ALLIES BACK OBAMA ON NEW START.... Officials hoping to see the Senate ratify the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, considered retiring Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio the kind of Republican who might be amenable to good-faith outreach. Getting to 67 is proving to be far more difficult than it should, but if eight Senate Republicans are to be found, Voinovich seemed like the kind of member who might be reasonable.

It was terribly disappointing, then, to see Voinovich speak on the Senate floor on Wednesday, insisting that the treaty might imperil "captive nations" in Eastern Europe. The Ohio Republican added that he would need assurances that our "allies throughout Europe" would benefit from the policy.

I have no idea if Voinovich was being sincere, or if he's looking for an excuse to oppose a worthwhile policy, but if Voinovich meant what he said, I have good news.

Nations on the front lines of the old Cold War divide made clear here Saturday that they want the Senate to ratify the new U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty, and said that Republican concerns about their well-being were misplaced.

In an unannounced group appearance at the end of an administration background briefing on Afghanistan, six European foreign ministers took the stage with a message for Congress.

"Don't stop START before it's started," Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nickolay Mladenov said.

Danish Foreign Minister Lene Espersen emphasized not only his support, but his conservative bona fides. "I'm also the chairman of the Conservative Party of Denmark," Espersen said. "Nobody can ever accuse me of being soft on security." He then enthusiastically endorsed the treaty, to "at least make the Republican Party [aware] of how important this is."

Hungarian Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi added, "We advocate ratification of START. It is in the interest of my nation, of Europe and most importantly for the trans-Atlantic alliance." He then added his ideological stamp of approval: "We're all conservatives."

Leaders from Poland, Bulgaria, and Norway also threw their support behind ratification.

And if all of those countries is a little too far west in Europe to impress Republicans, also note that leaders in Latvia and Lithunia are also anxious to see Republicans do the right thing on New START.

So, Sen. Voinovich, what do you say? If you were worried about European reactions, and Europe's on board, can we count on your "yes" vote?

Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

HATCH WAS FOR A MANDATE BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT.... When it comes to intellectual dishonesty on health care policy, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has arguably been even worse than most, but this tack, in particular, suggests he's growing increasingly unhinged.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) argued on Friday that under the Constitution the government cannot force consumers to buy health insurance and said he has joined a legal challenge of the individual mandate in Florida.

"This is not an activity, this is forcing people to buy something they may or may not want to buy and forcing them to buy a certain level of something that they may not want to buy also," Hatch told Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. "If the government can do that to us -- in other words, if Congress can do that to us, then there's nothing that the government can't do to us."

First of all, a health care insurance mandate isn't a recipe for unlimited government power over the citizenry, any more so than mandates on mandatory car insurance or mandatory flood insurance for homeowners in some coastal areas. Characterizing this as some kind of creeping "totalitarianism" is a little silly.

But more importantly, maybe now would be a good time to note that none other than Orrin Hatch not only endorsed an individual health care mandate in the '90s, he literally cosponsored legislation to make it law. Hatch was on national television, railing against a policy he personally tried to use his power in government to enact.

Hatch does realize Google exists, doesn't he? That his record is fairly easy to look up?

He went on to tell Van Susteren that the Affordable Care Act would "bankrupt the country," which is an odd argument given that the law reduces the deficit, and that the new system is "socialized medicine," which is ridiculous on its face.

But hearing Hatch's hysterics is a reminder about public attitudes towards the new law. I often find it confusing to understand what it is about health care reform Republicans hate so much, but Hatch's unhinged rant helps make the answer clear -- they believe things that aren't true, because prominent public officials like Hatch are lying to them.

Steve Benen 8:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

WHY MCCAIN-LIEBERMAN '08 WASN'T GOING TO WORK OUT.... In August 2008, before Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had chosen a running mate for the Republicans' national ticket, there was widespread chatter about McCain asking Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to come aboard.

We've since learned that the GOP nominee really did favor Lieberman, who was touted by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) among others, before going in a very different direction. But Ben Smith had an interesting item yesterday on some of the research that scuttled the idea.

Former McCain veep vetter and Washington power lawyer A.B. Culvahouse made clear in remarks before a Republican lawyers group today that the campaign had investigated the legal issues surrounding putting Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman on the GOP ticket last year and determined it would be a difficult task.

"Five states have sore loser statutes ... [making] it very difficult for someone who's not a member of the Republican Party to become the vice presidential nominee if they only switch parties to become a Republican shortly before the convention,' Culvahouse said in public remarks at the Republican National Lawyers Association annual meeting aired on C-SPAN.

The lawyer noted that the issue was so legally problematic, it likely would have required a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in the midst of a competitive presidential election, was "not particularly appetizing."

Smith added that, independent of the legal difficulties, Republican activists had also "warned of a revolt on the convention floor," which seemed like a credible threat. Much of the right was already skeptical about McCain, and picking Al Gore's pro-choice running mate probably would have caused even more widespread problems within the party.

This is just speculation, but I imagine McCain thought the trade-off would have worked in his favor -- he'd lose some of the far-right, but make up for it with independents who might have found the bipartisan ticket appealing -- but the legal issues Culvahouse explained very likely made the strategy a moot point.

As for the larger takeaway, there are a few related angles to keep in mind. First, this probably means "fusion" tickets are an impossibility for the foreseeable future, unless states start changing their election laws. Second, I find it rather interesting that McCain went from considering a running mate who supports gay rights to becoming one of the Senate's leading anti-gay members.

And third, if the McCain-Lieberman ticket had worked out, how many Americans outside Alaska would have any idea who Sarah Palin is right now?

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 20, 2010

NONE DARE CALL IT SABOTAGE.... Consider a thought experiment. Imagine you actively disliked the United States, and wanted to deliberately undermine its economy. What kind of positions would you take to do the most damage?

You might start with rejecting the advice of economists and oppose any kind of stimulus investments. You'd also want to cut spending and take money out of the economy, while blocking funds to states and municipalities, forcing them to lay off more workers. You'd no doubt want to cut off stimulative unemployment benefits, and identify the single most effective jobs program of the last two years (the TANF Emergency Fund) so you could kill it.

You might then take steps to stop the Federal Reserve from trying to lower the unemployment rate. You'd also no doubt want to create massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system, promising to re-write the rules overseeing the financial industry, vowing re-write business regulations in general, considering a government shutdown, and even weighing the possibly of sending the United States into default.

You might want to cover your tracks a bit, and say you have an economic plan that would help -- a tax policy that's already been tried -- but you'd do so knowing that such a plan has already proven not to work.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Matt Yglesias had an item the other day that went largely unnoticed, but which I found pretty important.

...I know that tangible improvements in the economy are key to Obama's re-election chances. And Douglas Hibbs knows that it's key. And senior administration officials know that its key. So is it so unreasonable to think that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner may also know that it's key? That rank and file Republicans know that it's key? McConnell has clarified that his key goal in the Senate is to cause Barack Obama to lose in 2012 which if McConnell understands the situation correctly means doing everything in his power to reduce economic growth. Boehner has distanced himself from this theory, but many members of his caucus may agree with McConnell.

Which is just to say that specifically the White House needs to be prepared not just for rough political tactics from the opposition (what else is new?) but for a true worst case scenario of deliberate economic sabotage.

Budget expert Stan Collender has predicted that Republicans perceive "economic hardship as the path to election glory." Paul Krugman noted in his column yesterday that Republicans "want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House."

As best as I can tell, none of this analysis -- all from prominent observers -- generated significant pushback. The notion of GOP officials deliberately damaging the economy didn't, for example, spark widespread outrage or calls for apologies from Matt or anyone else.

And that, in and of itself, strikes me as remarkable. We're talking about a major political party, which will control much of Congress next year, possibly undermining the strength of the country -- on purpose, in public, without apology or shame -- for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012.

Maybe now would be a good time to pause and ask a straightforward question: are Americans O.K. with this?

For months in 2009, conservatives debated amongst themselves about whether it's acceptable to actively root against President Obama as he dealt with a variety of pressing emergencies. Led by Rush Limbaugh and others, the right generally seemed to agree that there was nothing wrong with rooting against our leaders' success, even in a time of crisis.

But we're talking about a significantly different dynamic now. This general approach has shifted from hoping conditions don't improve to taking steps to ensure conditions don't improve. We've gone from Republicans rooting for failure to Republicans trying to guarantee failure.

Over the summer, this general topic came up briefly, and Jon Chait suggested observers should be cautious about ascribing motives.

Establishing motive is always very hard to prove. What's more, the notion of deliberate sabotage presumes a conscious awareness that doesn't square with human psychology as I understand it. People are extraordinarily deft at making their principles -- not just their stated principles, but their actual principles -- comport with their interests. The old Upton Sinclair quote -- "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it" -- has a lot of wisdom to it.

I don't think many Republicans are actually trying to stop legislation that might help the economy recover because they know that a slow economy is their best route to regaining power. I think that when they're in power, consequences like an economic slowdown or a collapsing industry seem very dire, and policies to prevent this are going to sound compelling. When you're out of power, arguments against such policies are going to sound more compelling.

That seems largely fair. Under this line of thought, Republicans have simply lied to themselves, convincing one another that worthwhile ideas should be rejected because they're not actually worthwhile anymore.

But Jon's benefit-of-the-doubt approach would be more persuasive if (a) the same Republicans weren't rejecting ideas they used to support; and (b) GOP leaders weren't boasting publicly about prioritizing Obama's destruction above all else, including the health of the country.

Indeed, we can even go a little further with this and note that apparent sabotage isn't limited to economic policy. Why would Republican senators, without reason or explanation, oppose a nuclear arms treaty that advances U.S. national security interests? When the treaty enjoys support from the GOP elder statesmen and the Pentagon, and is only opposed by Iran, North Korea, and Senate Republicans, it leads to questions about the party's intentions that give one pause.

Historically, lawmakers from both parties have resisted any kind of temptations along these lines for one simple reason: they didn't think they'd get away with it. If members of Congress set out to undermine the strength of the country, deliberately, just to weaken an elected president, they risked a brutal backlash -- the media would excoriate them, and the punishment from voters would be severe.

But I get the sense Republicans no longer have any such fears. The media tends to avoid holding congressional parties accountable, and voters aren't really paying attention anyway. The Boehner/McConnell GOP appears willing to gamble: if they can hold the country back, voters will just blame the president in the end. And that's quite possibly a safe assumption.

If that's the case, though, then it's time for a very public, albeit uncomfortable, conversation. If a major, powerful political party is making a conscious decision about sabotage, the political world should probably take the time to consider whether this is acceptable, whether it meets the bare minimum standards for patriotism, and whether it's a healthy development in our system of government.

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (89)

Bookmark and Share

MODERATE REPUBLICANS ARE A LITTLE LATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.... Despite an aggressive effort to convince Republicans to reject the entirety of climate science, there are apparently a handful of overwhelmed moderates who haven't completely rejected reason.

It's not quite an outright backlash yet, but some GOP moderates are beginning to publicly attack the widespread climate skepticism in their party's ranks.

Former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) -- who led the House Science Committee from 2001 to 2006 -- took his party to task in a Friday Washington Post column headlined "Science the GOP can't wish away."

"Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn't help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities," writes Boehlert, whose post-Congress work includes advising the Project on Climate Science.

He later adds: "There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem's existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution."

Boehlert's push came two days after outgoing Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) also lamented the fact that his party has its head in the sand when it comes to global warming.

That's helpful, I suppose, in helping push back against the notion that only the left is allowed to take science and evidence seriously, but it's worth noting that Boehlert is a former congressman, not a current one. Inglis is still a member for a few more weeks, but he lost a GOP primary by 40 points precisely because he's occasionally interested in reality.

If Republicans like Boehlert and Inglis are going to have any kind of impact on their party, they're going to need a lot of help.

At this point, the battle appears all but lost. Of every Republican U.S. candidate this year, all but one rejected the evidence of climate change. In the Senate next year, more than three-fourths of the caucus will be climate deniers. In the House, more than half of the Republicans question the science to one degree or another.

And those are just the politicians. We also learned this week that among the rank and file, just 38% of Republicans say there is solid evidence the earth is warming. Among "Tea Party" Republicans, 70% have concluded that climate science is wrong.

It didn't used to be this way. As recently as a few years ago, Republican voters, by and large, believed what the mainstream believed when it came to climate science. Then their party, its candidates, and its media outlets told these voters to stop believing the facts -- and rank-and-file Republicans did as they were told.

If there are still some GOP "moderates" in positions of influence who care about reality, I'm delighted and I can only hope they speak up. But they're pretty late to the game, and the rout is already on.

Steve Benen 10:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a fascinating policy announcement from Pope Benedict XVI, who stated unequivocally that all nations have a moral responsibility to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, "regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay."

Access to adequate medical attention, the pope said in a written message Nov. 18, was one of the "inalienable rights" of man. [...]

The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe.... Because an individual's health is a "precious asset" to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by "dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access."

Not surprisingly, some of this message was less progressive in nature. The pope, for example, isn't on board with euthanasia or embryonic research. But he nevertheless concluded that "justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions."

With this in mind, I can only hope to see Pope Benedict XVI work his way onto Glenn Beck's chalkboard, denounced by the right as a radical communist bent on Hitler-like tyranny over American taxpayers. Indeed, Media Matters flagged this Beck quote uttered during the debate over the Affordable Care Act.

"We have a right to health care, really? God doesn't give health care. Man provides health care. So how can it be a right. If you are endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable rights, how can a God-given right be health care, unless Jesus comes down and starts to open up a clinic and heal us himself? There cannot be a right to health care, because the rights come to God."

It looks like politically conservative Roman Catholics will have to decide which of these two interpretations caries more moral weight.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* President Obama signed an executive order this week reforming the rules governing the White House's faith-based office. The order takes some worthwhile steps clarifying Bush-era ambiguities, and received generally, but not universal, high-marks. The nine-page order, however, sidestepped arguably the most contentious issue in the debate: whether faith-based groups can accept public grants and still discriminate in hiring. (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

* In Phoenix, Arizona, the Light of the World church is in the process of building a Christian house of worship with modern architecture. But because the church features a dome, the congregation's leaders are drawing fire from locals who fear it's a mosque.

* On a related note, a judge in Tennessee ruled this week that the construction of a mosque in middle Tennessee can continue, despite demands from local bigots to block the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.

* Religious right leaders recently met to strategize on how best to defeat President Obama in 2012. A similar confab was held in 1979, and that one worked out pretty well for them.

* The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops elected Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York to be its president this week. The announcement was something of a surprise, which "reaffirmed the conservative direction of the Roman Catholic Church in America."

* And this holiday season, anyone inclined to think Christians are persecuted because some clerk at the mall wished them a "Happy Holidays" should consider what Christians are facing in Iraq right now.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

HUCKABEE NEEDS A SIXTH-GRADE CIVICS CLASS.... I realize Mike Huckabee wants to be president. I also realize that desire pushes Huckabee to say some pretty foolish things in order to impress his party's far-right base.

But even with these considerations in mind, Huckabee's approach to court rulings he doesn't like is pretty out there.

"A president has certainly got to respect a ruling of the court, but if the ruling of a court is wrong, and it's fundamentally wrong, and you have two branches of the government that determine that it's wrong, then those other two branches supersede the one.... The two branches of government, legislative and executive, have every right to make it clear to the Supreme Court that their interpretation is wrong. And whether they do that by constitutional amendment to spell it out to the court, or by passage of further amplification of law, there are many means, I think, at hand to do that."

Um, no.

Constitutional amendments are an option, I suppose, when elected officials have a problem with a Supreme Court ruling, but I sure would like to hear Huckabee's definition of "supersede."

While he's at it, maybe Huckabee, the governor turned Fox News personality, could also elaborate on what it means for other branches of government to "further amplify" the law. How would that work, exactly? Congress passes legislation, a president signs it into law, and the courts find it unconstitutional. But if it's a "fundamentally wrong" ruling, Huckabee thinks Congress and the White House can pursue "further amplification" to get what they want?

And who's to decide which rulings are the "fundamentally wrong" ones?

Huckabee has already demonstrated, repeatedly, that economics and foreign policy aren't his strong suits. I think we can add constitutional law to the list of issues he needs to work on before the next national campaign.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

GOP FLOATS TSA PRIVATIZATION.... In recent months, we've heard Republicans raise the specter of privatizing a wide variety of services. Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Administration hospitals, and even the Centers for Disease Control all became targets.

But as travelers grow more frustrated with heightened airport security, it appears Republicans are opening a new front on the privatization crusade.

A Republican lawmaker, who is faulting big government spending, is suggesting that airports dump the Transportation Security Administration altogether, and opt instead to privatize security.

And some airports, fed up with poor service in a climate where travelers are outraged about the prospect of full-body scanners, are listening.

The consideration comes after Florida Republican Rep. John Mica -- a longtime critic of the TSA -- wrote letters to the country's 100 busiest airports earlier this month asking them to switch to private security.

Mica is poised to become chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, so he'll be in a position to advance this issue.

There are a variety of angles to consider here. Note, for example, that private companies that stand to benefit from privatization also happen to be generous campaign contributors to Mica's re-election campaign.

Even more importantly, several domestic airports already use private screeners, but it's still the TSA that establishes mandatory security standards. If Mica or other Republicans want to have a conversation about whether those security measures are appropriate, that's fine. But whether those doing the screening are public employees or private contractors doesn't change the standards themselves. Selling this as some sort of cure-all for frustrated travelers is silly.

As Josh Marshall joked yesterday, "Watching cable TV this morning it seems like the new idea is that this would all be better if private sector workers rather than government employees were inspecting Americans' crotches, boobs, etc."

But via email, reader V.S. noted another angle that's worth paying attention to: legal restrictions. Existing standards, as written by federal officials, have to take constitutional issues into consideration. If Mica scrapped the TSA and let airports hire Blackwater-style private security to screen passengers, it's easy to imagine legal safeguards -- against racial profiling, for example -- suddenly being cast aside.

Steve Benen 9:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

LUGAR TO GOP: 'PLEASE DO YOUR DUTY FOR YOUR COUNTRY'.... The pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, has no greater Republican champion than Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana. Lugar, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been Congress' most respected and most credible GOP voice on international affairs, and his unyielding support for the measure should carry considerable weight in Republican circles.

What I find especially interesting this week, however, has been Lugar's willingness to raise the volume of that voice. On Wednesday, the mild-mannered-to-a-fault senator appeared at a press conference alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and was surprisingly animated about the importance of ratification.

Yesterday, Lugar appeared on MSNBC, and again made his case in a more forceful way than is usually expected of him.

"Please do your duty for your country," Lugar said in a message to his colleagues. "We do not have verification of the Russian nuclear posture right now. We're not going to have it until we sign the START treaty. We're not going to be able to get rid of further missiles and warheads aimed at us.

"I state it candidly to my colleagues, one of those warheads ... could demolish my city of Indianapolis -- obliterate it! Now Americans may have forgotten that. I've not forgotten it and I think that most people who are concentrating on the START treaty want to move ahead to move down the ladder of the number of weapons aimed at us."

Urging Republicans to "do their duty" for their country is good advice. If only they weren't so inclined to place party over patriotism.

Watching Lugar this week, it seems the quiet, reserved senior senator is just frustrated. I don't know Lugar personally, but seeing his passion on New START, I wouldn't be surprised if he's noticing that he seems to be the only Republican senator on the Hill who isn't afraid to put our national security needs over petty, partisan nonsense.

For the record, on the vast majority of the major issues of the day, I completely disagree with Lugar's positions. The way in which he's conducted himself during this debate, however, is a reminder that Lugar may be well to my right, but he tends to conduct himself in an honorable way.

Congress would be a less infuriating institution if we could say the same about his Republican colleagues.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

PICKING UP GOP VOTES ON DADT REPEAL?.... This week, the Senate Democratic leadership had to decide how to proceed on a must-pass the military spending bill (the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA). Would Dems keep a provision on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," or would they back down to Republicans, scrap the provision, and pass the rest of the bill?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Wednesday Dems wouldn't cave on this, setting up a December showdown. The strategy means, of course, that Dems will need at least two Republican votes to support funding for the troops when the measure reaches the floor.

Usually, at this point, attention would immediately turn to the Maine moderates (Collins and Snowe), but as of yesterday, two other players were in the mix.

The first was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), who appears to have won re-election in Alaska, and who told reporters late Thursday that if repeal "doesn't hurt the performance, the morale, the recruitment" of the military, according to the upcoming Pentagon survey, she would not block repeal. Though she later hedged a bit on CNN, Murkowski's vote in support of the spending bill appears to be a real possibility.

Yesterday, another GOP vote appeared to be in play, and this one was even more unexpected.

In a letter to constituents who have inquired about his position on DADT, GOP Senator John Ensign strongly suggests he is leaning towards supporting repeal of the policy, another sign that there may be enough tacit GOP support in the Senate for repeal to get it past a GOP filibuster.

"It is my firm belief that Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be able to fight and risk their lives in defense of this great nation," Ensign writes in the letter, which I've obtained. "As a nation currently engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, the focus of all decisions affecting military readiness, recruiting and retention, and unit cohesion should be to maximize the success of ongoing operations."

Ensign's office later walked this back, at least a little, emphasizing the need to wait for the Pentagon survey's release, but given the original, in-writing statement, the conservative Nevadan's vote certainly looks obtainable.

This is encouraging, and continues to suggest the GOP-mandated supermajority will be there when all is said and done. The downside, however, remains the same: the way to get the 60+ votes is for Dems to allow a two-week debate in December. With a severely limited lame-duck calendar, this would leave very little time for a variety of other priorities.

That said, if Dems bite the bullet and commit the time, the odds of final passage appear to be growing. Indeed, if Murkowki and Ensign break ranks, along with Collins and Snowe, I wouldn't be too surprised if an even larger Republican contingent saw which way the winds were blowing, and decided there's no point in ignoring public opinion on DADT and opposing troop funding during two wars.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 19, 2010

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

* POTUS in Lisbon: "President Obama and dozens of other world leaders began a NATO summit meeting Friday to set strategy in Afghanistan for the next four years and agree to a new global mission to take the alliance into the 21st century. In the opening session of the two-day meeting, the 28 alliance members plan to adopt a new Strategic Concept, their first in more than a decade."

* Our NATO allies want the U.S. Senate to ratify the New START treaty. Republicans seem more inclined to make Iran and North Korea happy.

* Irish rescue gets a price tag: "The financial support program being discussed between Ireland and potential donors should amount to at least 50 billion euros, officials with knowledge of the talks said Friday."

* Have I mentioned how much I love the White House White Board? I really do, and I'm delighted Austan Goolsbee keeps doing them. (If I worked in the White House, this is exactly the kind of stuff I'd be pushing all the time.)

* The utility of the Stuxnet worm: "Experts dissecting the computer worm suspected of being aimed at Iran's nuclear program have determined that it was precisely calibrated in a way that could send nuclear centrifuges wildly out of control."

* A day after recommending censure for Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), the House ethics committee delayed indefinitely a trial for Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

* It's probably fair to say the Transportation Security Administration's more aggressive pat-downs of passengers at airport security checkpoints isn't going over well with the traveling public.

* Most of the country doesn't know that there will be a Republican majority in the House next year. Have I mentioned lately that informed electorate is a prerequisite to a thriving democratic system of government?

* It wasn't easy, but the Senate approved the Pigford II settlement. It's about time.

* Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) wants Attorney General Eric Holder to resign. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) is either pretty dumb, or he's pretending to be pretty dumb to curry favor with the GOP base.

* Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) really needs to go away and enjoy a lengthy period of quiet time.

* CREW's Melanie Sloan is going where? Glenn Greenwald noted, "Leaving CREW to work for Lanny Davis would be like leaving the ACLU to work for Dick Cheney."

* I've heard of creative campus protests before, but a "yawn in" is a new one.

* David Frum finds Sarah Palin's tweets rather horrifying. He's not alone.

* And I'd find Glenn Beck less scary if he didn't do things like suggest military coups against America's elected leadership.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

LANDrIEU YIELDS, LEW GETS TO WORK.... I noted yesterday that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), still hoping to help the oil industry with coastal drilling, had not yet lifted her ridiculous hold on Jack Lew's OMB nomination.

It's only fair to note, then, that a few hours later, the center-right Louisianan finally relented.

The Office of Management and Budget has a director again -- and he looks familiar.

Jacob J. Lew, confirmed for the position tonight on a voice vote in the Senate, will be coming back to the office he left in January 2001, turning over to his success about $236 billion in surplus funds. [...]

The confirmation of Mr. Lew, currently a deputy secretary of state, had been delayed by a hold placed by Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, in protest of the Obama administration's
moratorium on deep-water oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

In a statement tonight, she said she had released the hold because she had "received a commitment from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to provide certainty and regulatory clarity to an industry that has operated in the dark for months with shifting rules."

How gracious of her to let the Senate do its job.

In explaining her ridiculous behavior, Landrieu added, "I figured it would get [the administration's] attention and I think it has."

Perhaps. But it's also gotten the rest of our attention, too, and made clear that Landrieu will do the oil industry's bidding, even if it means throwing an irresponsible tantrum.

The Office of Management and Budget is poised to start writing the 2012 budget, and it needs a budget director. Now that Landrieu's reckless stunt has come to an end, Lew and his team can finally get to work.

Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

KLINE CRYSTALLIZES CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATISM.... Rep. John Kline (R) is poised to become chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, giving him quite a bit of power over issues of great concern to the public. He'll be succeeding Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who's proven himself to be an exceptional champion of working families.

Kline prefers a different approach.

Yesterday, the conservative Republican talked with Minnesota Public Radio about his opposition to extended unemployment benefits, pointing to the budget deficit. Specifically, he was asked, "[W]hat do you tell those folks hanging on by a thread who really need those benefits?" Kline responded:

"Well, they, heh, the best thing to do for them is to get the economy back on track and get businesses hiring so that they have a job that they can go to. We simply don't have the money to keep extending unemployment benefits indefinitely. We just don't have the money."

He added, "We can't fund everything."

In general, that's true; we can't "fund everything." It's up to policymakers in a position of power to exercise good judgment and choose between competing priorities.

On the one hand, we have hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts that will benefit millionaires and billionaires, and all of which would be added to the deficit. Kline supports the cuts enthusiastically. America, apparently, "has the money."

On the other hand, we have 2.5 million Americans, all of whom are struggling badly, poised to lose jobless benefits. These benefits tend to have an impressive stimulative effect -- when the unemployed get a check, they spend it -- which improves the larger economy. Kline opposes the benefits, and voted against them yesterday. America, apparently, "doesn't have the money."

As Kline sees it, we need to get the economy "back on track." I agree wholeheartedly. But here's the follow-up Minnesota Public Radio didn't ask: when 2.5 million Americans lose their buying power and spend less money, how would that help the economy get "back on track"?

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

MSNBC SUSPENDS SCARBOROUGH.... Not again.

MSNBC said Friday that it is suspending "Morning Joe" co-host Joe Scarborough for two days after he acknowledged giving eight previously unknown $500 contributions to friends and family members running for state and local offices during his tenure at the network, a violation of parent NBC's ban on political contributions by employees without specific permission from the network president.

"I recognize that I have a responsibility to honor the guidelines and conditions of my employment, and I regret that I failed to do so in this matter," Scarborough said in a statement. "I apologize to MSNBC and to anyone who has been negatively affected by my actions," said, adding that after he was made aware of some of the contributions, he called MSNBC president Phil Griffin "and agreed with Phil's immediate demand of a two-day suspension without pay."

So, let me get this straight. MSNBC hired a former Republican congressman to host a show in which he freely shares his opinions, and endorses the GOP line on most issues. But if he makes fairly modest contributions to Republican candidates -- not in secret to the Chamber of Commerce, but fully disclosed, legal donations -- it warrants a suspension without pay?

Obviously, this comes on the heels of the recent Keith Olbermann controversy, and I have a hard time believing Scarborough would have faced this punishment if the "Countdown" host hadn't just faced the identical rebuke.

The point, though, is that the Olbermann suspension was a mistake. This is, too.

In fairness to MSNBC, the Scarborough matter may be slightly worse, not just because there were a few more donations, but because the "Morning Joe" host was asked by MSNBC president Phil Griffin about political activities, and Scarborough didn't disclose these contributions. Scarborough apparently forgot about them, and I'm not in a position to know whether it was an innocent lapse or a deliberate effort to deceive. (Since some of the donations go back a few years, I'm not inclined to give Scarborough the benefit of the doubt here.)

But really, either way, the punishment strikes me as unwarranted. Maybe it's time to revisit those network standards?

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM 'LIGHTBULBGATE'.... House Republicans have not yet decided who'll chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but we're down to three finalists. The competition tells us quite a bit about the state of the GOP caucus.

A leading contender is currently the committee's ranking member, Texas' Joe Barton, best known for apologizing to BP for its oil spill and being Congress' most pro-pollution lawmaker. He'll fight for the gavel with Illinois' John Shimkus, who's made a name for himself by refuting science with his understanding of the Bible.

The third competitor is Michigan's Fred Upton, a conservative Republican, but a relative moderate by 2010 standards. He's facing far-right attacks this week over, of all things, light bulbs.

Hoping to counter attacks from his right, Rep. Fred Upton is promising to reexamine a controversial ban on incandescent light bulbs if he becomes chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Michigan Republican told POLITICO on Thursday that he's not afraid to go back after an issue he once supported but that has come under withering assault on the conservative airwaves, including on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's talk shows.

"If I become chairman, we'll be reexamining the light bulb issue, no problem," Upton said.

Upton's bid to be the next Energy and Commerce Committee leader has been rocked by allegations that he's too moderate for the post.

Beck called him "all socialist" for cosponsoring legislation phasing out incandescent light bulbs that made it into a 2007 energy law signed by President George W. Bush. An unsigned 22-page document highlighting Upton's voting record on a range of fiscal, social and policy has also been circulating around Capitol Hill this month.

Just so we're clear, one of the central issues for Republicans in the 21st century, when picking a lawmaker to chair a committee dealing with energy, is protection for a 19th-century-style light bulb.

For the record, Upton did some admirable work on this in 2007, putting in place a phase-out of the energy-inefficient incandescent bulbs. The provision was approved with bipartisan support, and the larger legislation was easily passed and signed by President Bush.

But that was 2007, and the party has moved even further to the right since. Now, in order to even be considered for a post, Upton not only has to endure attacks from the likes of Limbaugh and Beck, he also has to promise to revisit his sensible bill. Dave Weigel jokingly referred to this as "Lightbulbgate."

The lesson, apparently, for congressional Republicans: if you intend to get ahead on the Hill, never do anything the right-wing might not like.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

'RUSSIANS ARE MYSTIFIED'.... I find it genuinely insane that Senate Republicans would ignore U.S. national security interests and kill the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START.

But imagine how Russia feels.

Russians are mystified. They can't quite believe that the U.S. Senate might fail to ratify the nuclear arms treaty, and they see no good from such an outcome.

The list of possible harmful effects they cite encompasses a minefield of global concerns: no more cooperation on Iran, a setback for progressive tendencies in Russia, new hurdles for Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, a terrible example for nuclear countries such as China and India, dim prospects for better NATO relations. And to top it off, the United States and its president would look ridiculous.

Sergei M. Rogov, director of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, told the Post he simply didn't believe Republicans would go through with this, unambiguous threats notwithstanding. "In arms control, Russian and American cooperation is crucial," Rogov said. "I really don't think Republicans want to kill arms control."

The problem, I suspect, is that much of the world assumes Republican officials in the United States place the country's well being above all else. International observers, in other words, believe elected American politicians want to do things that would benefit America. It's a simple matter of self-interest, which tends to motivate practically everyone in international affairs.

In this case, we're talking about a treaty that would keep tabs on Russia's long-range nuclear bases, bolster American credibility around the globe, weaken Iran and North Korea, improve Russian cooperation in Afghanistan, and diminish the political strength of hard-liners in Moscow. For Americans who want to help America, it's a no-brainer.

But Obama Derangement Syndrome doesn't just lead right-wing activists to believe ridiculous things, it's also a sickness that causes powerful Republican officials to put partisanship over patriotism.

Note that Senate Republicans who intend to kill New START can't even explain themselves. They're not holding out for some new concession; they don't have a list of demands; they haven't identified flaws in the measure they find intolerable. Their opposition is simply mindless. The White House needs the treaty to improve our national security, so Republicans are against it to deny the White House a victory.

No wonder Russians are "mystified." Since when do American leaders deliberately act against American interests? The world is watching Washington, assuming that President Obama can't convince Americans to do the right thing. But the problem isn't with the country; it's with a few dozen people in the Senate, whose partisan hatred has clouded their judgment in ways that are literally hard to believe.

In related news, we also learned this morning that the U.S. intelligence community will likely have to move spy satellites away from Iraq and Afghanistan, and towards Russia as a consequence of GOP obstinacy on New START.

It's tempting to think Republicans would hear this and want to prevent it. But that would presume that they actually care.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

Bookmark and Share

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) appears to have won re-election in Alaska, but Republican nominee Joe Miller has asked a federal judge for an injunction stopping state officials from certifying the election. It's not clear what more evidence Miller needs that he lost, and the state party has already urged him to stop fighting the results.

* Senate Democrats have struggled, to an almost embarrassing extent, to find a chair for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2012. In the latest push, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and White House officials are leaning hard on Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to accept the position.

* Two of the six unresolved U.S. House races are in New York, and in both cases, Democratic incumbents saw their vote totals inch higher yesterday. Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) picked up more than 500 votes, and now trails by 303 votes. Also, Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) has gained more than 100 votes, and now trails by 272 votes.

* On a related note, Bishop discovered this week that his GOP challenger, Randy Altschuler, is trying to disqualify the votes of the congressman's 86-year-old parents. Classy.

* Sen. James Webb (D) would be quite competitive if he seeks re-election, but if he retires, who would Dems turn to? Former governor and current DNC chair Tim Kaine would probably be the top choice, but keep an eye on recently-defeated Rep. Tom Perriello.

* And Vice President Biden appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this morning, where the hosts showed him a clip of former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) telling Barbara Waters she thinks she could beat President Obama in 2012. Biden literally laughed, before telling the hosts he should say no more.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

NORQUIST THINKS THE GOP WILL WIN FROM ANOTHER SHUTDOWN.... In August, sleazy GOP consultant Dick Morris told a far-right group that in the next Congress, 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 boasted.

Grover Norquist is giving his party the same advice.

The head of the influential Americans for Tax Reform is encouraging the new House Republican majority to adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to federal spending -- and if that leads to a 1995-style government shutdown, so be it.

Midterm voters "were voting to stop the Obama spendathon, and that's what people were sent to Washington to do," Norquist said in an interview.

These guys seriously believe that the public would credit Republicans for shutting down the government. Some even think Republicans ended up benefiting from the '95 and '96 efforts.

Going forward, there are two main angles to keep an eye on. The first is whether Republican leaders are crazy enough to think this is a good idea. There's some evidence that GOP officials consider the Gingrich shutdowns to be a mistake -- one they don't intend to repeat. Just this week, Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said shutting down the government would be "a mistake," adding, "Nobody really wants that." Similarly, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was recently asked if we're likely to see a replay of 1995. "No. I don't think the country needs or wants a shutdown," Cantor said. He added that when it comes to pursuing their agenda, Republicans "have to be careful" or they'll be "seen as a bunch of yahoos."

The other is whether Republican leaders are going to have much of a choice. The party has told its base that it will not compromise on anything with anyone. It has a legion of freshman joining the ranks on the Hill, and nearly all are rabid right-wing ideologues, who expect Boehner, Cantor, et al, to wage a fierce, partisan war.

Politico noted that Boehner was a Gingrich loyalist in '95, and "people close to him today say he has scant interest in reliving that fight."

Whether the incoming Speaker has the ability to lead his caucus away from that cliff remains to be seen. Norquist and his ilk will surely be making ridiculous demands, and making of the rank-and-file members of the caucus will find those calls compelling.

I hope Republican leaders like the monster they created.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

THE WRONG QUESTION AT THE WRONG TIME.... CBS News sent around a press release yesterday afternoon about a special "In Focus: Debt and Deficit," hosted by Katie Couric.

The release noted, "With this year's record-breaking deficit of $1.5 trillion -- the biggest ever in U.S. history -- and the national debt reaching a whopping $14 trillion, Americans are now faced with making tough choices in order for the country to dig itself out of its national financial mess."

The press release happened to be wrong. The deficit isn't $1.5 trillion; it's $1.29 trillion. The deficit also isn't "the biggest ever in U.S. history," neither in real terms nor in percentage of GDP. The national debt hasn't reached a "whopping $14 trillion" yet, either. All of these errors were in the first paragraph.

But while the mistakes were glaring and important, I was more troubled by the basis of the report itself. The deficit matters, but not nearly as much as the ongoing employment crisis. Where's our "In Focus: Jobs and Economic Growth"?

The media/political establishment keeps asking the wrong question. Even Fareed Zakaria has fallen for it, arguing this week that "the fate" of the United States is dependent on policymakers tackling deficit reduction.

The establishment tends to ignore liberal hippies on this, but maybe they'll listen to Time's Joe Klein, an establishment member in good standing, who asks this week, "Why are we spending so much time and effort bloviating about long-term deficits and so little trying to untangle the immediate economic mess that we're in?"

Ezra Klein emphasized a similar point the other day.

This is partly why I consider the cramped focus of the deficit commission a mistake. We should've had a broader commission looking at getting the economy back on track. Then there could've been recommendations to accelerate short-term growth (like the stimulus proposals that have appeared in the fiscal plans from both Rep. Jan Schakowsky and the Bipartisan Policy Center), reduce the deficit and put us on sustainable long-term footing (think tax reform, education reform, basic-research funding, etc).

It may not have worked, or passed. But then, you can say much the same for the Simpson-Bowles commission, which looks unlikely to report out a consensus proposal, much less pass it through Congress. And the reality is that liberals would be more likely to sign on to long-term austerity if it were paired with short-term stimulus.

Poll after poll lately has shown the same, consistent result: the public wants policymakers to focus on jobs and the economy, not deficits and the debt.

The conversation seems to have gotten wildly off track in Washington, and it's not getting better. Republicans' first post-election priority yesterday was going after NPR and opposing unemployment aid that boosts the economy. Going forward, the emboldened GOP wants to gut health care, cut spending, and protect a failed tax policy -- but creating jobs isn't part of the gameplan.

It'll be up to President Obama and congressional Dems to try to get the political world focused again.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN DOES EUROPE COUNT?.... There are a growing number of deficit-reduction reports garnering attention in D.C. lately, but the Rivlin/Domenici approach is of particular interest when it comes to taxes.

Former OMB Director Alice Rivlin and former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) would lower income taxes, and offset the costs with a 6.5% national sales tax and an excise tax on sugar drinks like soda.

Any chance Republicans might consider something along these lines? Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told the Wall Street Journal there's a problem with this kind of approach.

[Cantor] said Tuesday that many lawmakers wouldn't support VAT-type tax because its ties to Europe might make it politically poisonous in Washington.

"I don't think any of us want us to go the direction of the social welfare states around the world," Mr. Cantor said at the CEO Council.

This is what passes for substantive policy analysis from Eric Cantor. We could debate the relative merits of a consumption tax, or we could dismiss it for sounding "European."

It would be helpful if, at some point, Republicans could get together and let everyone know when Europe is allowed to be considered. This week, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he doesn't want to ratify a nuclear arms treaty until he's satisfied that Europe approves of it. Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said last week that quantitative easing from the Fed must be a bad idea if Europe doesn't like it. For News president Roger Ailes said this week that President Obama should take his cues on monetary policy from Europe.

So, Republicans, what's it going to be? Are European approaches to be ignored or embraced? Mixed messages aren't helpful.

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

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... We talked yesterday about the ways in which the Republican tax policy of the Bush era clearly didn't work. While GOP leaders insisted that the massive tax cuts, geared towards the wealthy, would create jobs, generate robust growth, and balance the budget, none of those predictions came true. They actually had it backwards.

Oddly enough, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), currently the House Republican conference chairman, suggested yesterday that he doesn't think his party's tax policies worked, either.

"Jim DeMint and I are offering legislation on Capitol Hill today to say, look, let's make all the current tax rates permanent, uh, and then let's start to work from there toward putting in place the kind of policies that'll really get this economy moving again. You know, I think it's fair to say, if the current tax rates were enough to create jobs and generate economic growth we'd have a growing economy. It's not working now. Let's at least give some certainty there and then we'll fight for more tax relief."

Those who watch Pence regularly know he's not the sharpest crayon in the box, but this quote is pretty amazing, even for him.

Pence thought Bush's tax cuts would work wonders. He was wrong. This leads Pence to now believe we should keep the policy that he knows didn't work, and then do more of it. It's the patented "fail and fail again" approach to economic policy.

The 112th Congress really is going to be a national nightmare.

Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

BOEHNER WANTS CONGRESS TO TACKLE DEBT LIMIT 'AS ADULTS'.... During the campaign season leading up to the midterms, Republicans reveled in using the federal debt ceiling for partisan demagoguery.

But now the elections are behind us, and GOP leaders realize their new majority is going to have to swallow hard and approve the same kind of debt limit extension they bashed Democrats for passing.

Many of the new Republican lawmakers harshly criticized their Democratic opponents during the campaign for voting to raise the limit in the past, citing it as an example of the Democrats' recklessness with federal tax dollars.

But on Thursday, Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said he's been talking to the newly elected GOP lawmakers about the need to raise the federal debt ceiling when it comes up early next year.

"I've made it pretty clear to them that as we get into next year, it's pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with this," Mr. Boehner, who is slated to become House speaker in January, told reporters.

"We're going to have to deal with it as adults," he said, in what apparently are his most explicit comments to date. "Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part."

Oh, now Boehner wants Republicans to be mature? What convenient timing.

To be sure, Congress doesn't have much of a choice here. If lawmakers balk and refuse to raise the debt limit, the United States goes into default, signaling to the world that the country isn't in a position to repay its debts. U.S. treasuries, considered the safest investment on the planet, would no longer have the backing of the full faith and credit of the United States. The result is a government shutdown -- and a whole lot more.

But the new House GOP majority has been told not to care. For months, if not years, Republicans have stoked these fires, convincing the party's candidates and its base that routine extensions of the debt ceiling are downright evil.

Maybe they should have thought this through a little better, appreciating the fact that mindless demagoguery often comes with consequences.

As for what to expect next, there are multiple angles to keep an eye on. First, Boehner & Co. will try to convince rabid, right-wing freshman to be responsible on this, which will be a tough sell. Second, watch for some leading Republicans to try to strike some bizarre deals -- Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a member of the leadership, has suggested Republicans will extend the debt limit if the White House agrees to a partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act. That's both insane and unrealistic, but the push will happen anyway.

And third, pay careful attention to how House Dems handle this. Democrats won't be in any hurry to help Boehner out, since it was Republicans who used this as a campaign cudgel throughout 2010. Indeed, Boehner may assume that getting to 218 shouldn't be too difficult -- if the 190 (or so) House Democrats are prepared to do the responsible thing, the GOP leadership will only need a small fraction of the Republican caucus to get this done.

But there's no way on earth Pelosi and the Dems go along with such a scheme. Even if an extension is endorsed by Republican leaders, Democrats aren't about to open themselves up to another round of attacks on this issue. It seems quite likely, then, that Pelosi will have a direct message for her GOP counterpart: you made this bed, so you'll have to lie in it - to avoid a global catastrophe, find the votes on your side of the aisle.

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

Bookmark and Share

REID'S TAX STRATEGY TAKES SHAPE.... Yesterday, House Democrats signaled their support for a lame-duck tax strategy: vote on the middle-class-first policy originally proposed by President Obama. But what about the Senate? We're starting to get a sense of what the leadership has in mind there, too.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has adopted a hardball strategy for dealing with Republicans on the expiring Bush-era tax cuts.

Reid will force a vote on extending tax cuts for families earning below $250,000 and individuals below $200,000 that would allow tax rates on the wealthy to expire. But it's not clear whether that vote will be on a permanent or temporary extension because of a split in the Democratic caucus, a notable change since the election.

Senate Republicans, of course, want their policy -- a permanent extension of all Bush-era rates -- to be brought to the floor for consideration. Reid, confident it wouldn't pass, is happy to hold just a vote. But the Democratic leadership would then also hold votes on Democratic alternatives, focused more on permanent breaks for the middle class, not the wealthy.

"We want an opportunity and -- and we mean plural -- to vote once, twice, whatever it takes to show the American people that we support the middle class," Reid told reporters late yesterday. He added there could be "multiple variations" on how to proceed on the cuts for wealthier Americans, presumably including temporary extensions.

For Reid and Democrats, part of the goal is to get Senate Republicans on record trying to kill a permanent extension of middle-class tax cuts. At this point, that seems pretty likely.

But one major unknown hangs over all of this: what will senators do if/when all of these plans come up short? As has been the case, this is easier in the House -- for a few more weeks, the Democratic majority may be large enough to push the smart middle-class-first plan and pass it. In the Senate, however, Dems are already less united around a single approach -- about a half-dozen Democrats are on board with the Republicans' "compromise" of extending all of the cuts temporarily -- which makes it that much more difficult to pass a Democratic plan.

Looking ahead, then, the most likely scenario is that Reid will bring up the GOP plan, and it'll fail, at which point Reid will bring up the Democratic plan (the one favored by the House), and it'll fail, too.

What's Plan B? No one seems to have the foggiest idea.

All of this is poised to come up the week after Thanksgiving.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 18, 2010

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

* The first step is admitting you have a problem: "Irish officials acknowledged for the first time Thursday that Ireland was seeking aid from international lenders to try to end the debt crisis stemming from the country's failed banks that has hurt confidence in its long-term finances and renewed doubts about the stability of the euro."

* A slight uptick, but in line with expectations: "New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits rose slightly last week as expected, a government report showed on Thursday, but the underlying trend remained tilted toward a gradual improvement in the labor market."

* Congressional Republicans just don't like the unemployed: "An extension of jobless benefits enacted this summer expires Dec. 1, and on Thursday, a bill to extend them for three months failed in the House. Democrats brought the bill to the floor under fast-track rules that required a two-thirds vote to pass. Republicans opposed the legislation because they were denied a chance to attach spending cuts, so the measure fell despite winning a 258-154 majority."

* The House Ethics Committee has recommended censure for Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.).

* The first post-election Republican measure in the House was a proposal to de-fund NPR. It failed.

* Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), to his enormous credit, is showing some passion in urging the Senate to ratify New START. He's talking, of course, to members of his own caucus. The White House, meanwhile, is getting more involved with each passing day.

* Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf wants a second term. He deserves one, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) may block Elmendorf because he's published budget reports that Republicans didn't find helpful. Remember, GOP officials only want to hear evidence they already agree with.

* Remember that Rand Paul supporter who stomped on a defenseless woman's head? He's pleading not guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge.

* Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) suggests a message for Democrats: "Americans do not negotiate with hostage-takers." That seems like a reasonable maxim. (Republicans, I think he's talking about you.) [Update: Link fixed.)

* The Heritage Foundation's opposition to funding the Pell Grant program really doesn't make any sense.

* The things Fox News pundits say about Sarah Palin are a lot more interesting during commercial breaks, when they think no one's listening.

* And in Arkansas, a new Republican state lawmaker and champion of the Confederate Battle Flag, was asked this week what that flag means to him. "It's a symbol of Jesus Christ above all else," Loy Mauch said. "It's a symbol of Biblical government." I think he was serious.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

THE MIDDLE-CLASS-FIRST PLAN DOESN'T LEAVE OUT THE WEALTHY.... Following up on the last item, I described the middle-class-first tax plan as a proposal that would give permanent cuts to those making less than $250,000, but bring the wealthy back to Clinton-era rates. An emailer reminds me that this shorthand description isn't quite detailed enough.

jctchart.gif

It's a fair point, so let's be more precise. Under the proposal that Greg Sargent reports is under consideration, House Democrats would hold a vote on the same plan President Obama has pushed for years. The rates that are due to expire, by Republican design, at year's end would be extended permanently for those making under $250,000. The top rates for the wealthy would return to Clinton-era rates, but that's all that would go up -- these folks would still get tax breaks on their first quarter-million in income.

This chart, published by the Washington Post back in August, continues to be the best illustration I've seen on who would benefit by the competing plans in 2011. The columns show the size of the tax break by income level, and you'll no doubt notice that both the Democratic and Republican approaches would give breaks to every income group. The difference, of course, is with which groups get the biggest break.

The column on the left shows what I've been calling the middle-class-first approach -- everyone gets a tax cut, but the benefits are spread out, with a focus on the middle. The column on the right shows the Republican alternative -- a permanent extension of Bush's failed policy -- which clearly directs the bulk of money to the very wealthy.

The right insists that the column on the left isn't good enough, because it doesn't do enough to help the rich. Indeed, some have even suggested the middle-class-first plan is a "tax hike," despite the fact that everyone would actually get a tax cut.

It should set up a compelling political fight (which would have been smarter before the election): Dems fighting for the middle class, while Republicans fight for the rich. Indeed, Dems fighting for permanent middle-class tax cuts, which also help the wealthy, while Republicans hold the whole package hostage until the rich get more.

It's not every day the two parties' approaches to government get spelled out so clearly.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE DEMS SIGNAL SUPPORT FOR SMART TAX POLICY.... I'm reluctant to get my hopes up, because something will almost certainly come along to screw this up, but Greg Sargent reports that House Democrats will hold a vote on the middle-class-first tax breaks many of us have recommended.

Steny Hoyer, the number two in the House Dem leadership, told Democrats at a caucus meeting this morning that they would get to vote this year on just extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, a senior Dem aide tells me, signaling support for a confrontational move towards the GOP that liberals have been pushing.

Asked if Democrats would definitely get a chance to hold this vote, the senior aide responded: "Definitely."

Hoyer's declaration comes as Democrats have been debating the way forward on the Bush tax cuts, and another aide tells me that "more than half" of the Dem caucus supports this course of action.

Assuming the aide is right, and this smart approach is garnering caucus support, there are any number of things that can still go wrong. First, there's the question whether House Dems will really stick to their guns, even after Republicans push an awkward "motion to recommit." We haven't even heard an endorsement of this approach from anyone in the leadership.

Second, there's the Senate, where a grand total of two members (Wyden and Feinstein) have expressed public support for the middle-class-first approach. Third, there's the White House, which hasn't necessarily signaled its support for any one alternative, waiting to see how this shakes out.

Having said all that, Greg's report suggests Dems are at least moving in a smart direction.

To briefly recap for those just joining us, Democrats are committed to a permanent tax break for the middle class. Republicans have said this is simply out of the question unless Dems agree to help millionaires and billionaires at the same time.

The resulting strategy should be pretty easy. The approach originally backed by President Obama remains the best one: permanent breaks for those making under $250,000, Clinton-era rates for the wealthy. Dems can and should bring this package of middle-class tax cuts to the floor and dare Republicans to kill them. If the GOP caves, Dems get the policy they want. If the GOP kills the whole thing, Clinton-era rates return for everyone, which is probably the policy Dems should want anyway, and the headlines read, "Republicans kill tax cut compromise; higher rates kick in Jan. 1."

Democrats have been on the defensive for no apparent reason. The middle-class-first option gives them a chance to get off the ropes and put the GOP on the defensive.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

DESTROYING PELOSI'S REPUTATION: A CASE STUDY.... The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked respondents whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of various political figures and parties. President Obama continues to have the highest positive ratings, and Democrats continue to enjoy more popularity than Republicans.

But it's the ratings for congressional leaders that stand out. The leader with the very lowest positive ratings is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- only 11% have a favorable view -- but that's only because most Americans have no idea who he is. Among the recognized figures, it's outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who fares the worst -- 24% have a favorable opinion of her, but literally twice as many, 48%, hold her in low regard.

This is in keeping with what Nate Silver's analysis found yesterday. In terms of favorability ratings, the American political figures with the highest positives are Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Al Gore, in that order. The figure with the highest negative is Pelosi.

After going through the available data, Silver concluded the current House Speaker is "among the least popular politicians in America today -- perhaps the single least popular one that maintains an active political role."

A party leader's principal goal isn't necessarily to be popular, and Ms. Pelosi was exceptionally successful at advancing legislation through the House in 2009 and 2010, whipping votes to pass a stimulus package, an energy bill, and a health care bill (twice!), among many other pieces of the Democratic agenda.

Still, the role of the party leader changes when a party goes from being in the majority to the minority. And it noteworthy that, of the several reasons that Jonathan Allen and John F. Harris at Politico cite for why Ms. Pelosi is likely to retain her top position in spite of her poor public image, almost none have to do with any tactical or strategic advantage the Democrats might gain from selecting her; instead, they have to do with institutional politics.

I don't mention this to bash Pelosi. On the contrary, I've long considered myself a great admirer of the Speaker.

Rather, I mention this as something of a case study. When Republicans decided they'd try to destroy Pelosi's reputation in 2008, I scoffed. The vast majority of voters didn't necessarily know who Pelosi was or what she stood for, so the crusade to tear down her name seemed like a waste of time. If people don't know who Pelosi is, why invest resources in attacking her?

But Republicans have a knack for not accepting political circumstances as they are, but rather, using blunt force to create new political circumstances more to their liking. The GOP and its allies stuck with their anti-Pelosi campaign, directing as much fire at her as anyone, including President Obama. They set out to destroy her reputation, using "Pelosi" as a synonym for "radical liberalism," and in time their efforts paid off. Today, the House Speaker is poised to depart her post very unpopular, not because of any scandals, misjudgments, or mistakes, but because of a coordinated effort to convince the country Pelosi offends their values.

It's almost impressive as a p.r. strategy -- and by "impressive," I mean that in the same sense that it's also impressive that tobacco companies manage to convince teenagers to smoke.

This can also serve as a reminder to Democrats. There was about a month in which Dems decided they'd try to make John Boehner something of a villain. It didn't really go far, and most Americans still don't know who he is. The point, though, is that it takes time and determination to sully a leader's reputation in Americans' eyes. Republicans were patient when it came to turning Pelosi into a monster; are Dems prepared to take their time with the new Speaker?

Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

IRAN, NORTH KOREA, AND THE GOP CAUCUS ROOM.... Richard Burt was the chief U.S. negotiator for the START-1 treaty with the former Soviet Union in 1991, and appeared on PBS's "Newshour" last night to talk about the pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START. His perspective is worth paying attention to. (via Matt Duss)

"[I]n thinking about the problem of ratification or non-ratification, we have to look at the consequences of what happens if this treaty goes down. We lose the verification system that has already lapsed under the treaty that I negotiated. We miss the opportunity to improve relations with the Russians, who have supported us on Iran, and U.N. sanctions, and increasingly in Afghanistan. And we lose all credibility on the problem of stopping nuclear proliferation.

"...[T]here are only two governments in the world that wouldn't like to see this treaty ratified: the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea."

That's not hyperbole. If one were to visualize international affairs as a series of axes, we'd see Iran and North Korea together, hoping to see the ratification fail. And as it turns out, much of the Senate Republican caucus is on the same side, though they're obviously driven by very different motivations.

And not just current Senate Republicans, either. As if proponents needed a reminder as to why time is of the essence, all 10 incoming freshman Republican senators wrote a joint letter today, urging their future colleagues not to ratify the treaty in the lame-duck session.

Sure. Of course. Republican games are only delaying inspection of Russia's long-range nuclear bases and making things easier on Ahmadinejad. Why rush?

As for what's next, Slate's Fred Kaplan believes New START ratification is still possible, and presents some worthwhile ideas to make it happen.

Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

A FINE TIME FOR A VICTORY LAP.... General Motors launched a successful IPO this morning, marking not only the end of the government's role as a majority shareholder, but also one of the great, contemporary corporate success stories, thanks entirely to a well-executed public-private partnership.

It was a partnership that Republicans and leading conservative voices insisted would fail. Newsweek ran an item yesterday, noting the plain fact that the right was wrong.

What could have happened is that today, General Motors would be in the 15th month of its bankruptcy, no end in sight, with consumers shying away from its products and tens of thousands of automobile industry workers either laid off or despairing for their futures.

Instead we have an IPO that is the talk of Wall Street, loans being repaid with stock sale proceeds, an auto company that makes money at the bottom of a cycle and new products that are widely applauded.

So it's a simple call. The Tea Party ... simply got it wrong.

Yes, they did, as did their Republican friends in Congress and in the media, many of whom literally predicted "disaster."

But what's especially astounding here is that the right continues to resist reality. Those who were wrong not only won't admit, they continue to insist they were right, their lying eyes notwithstanding. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) condemned Obama's rescue of the automotive industry two weeks ago, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) did the same thing this morning.

Why conservatives insist on whining about an American success story is beyond me. Conservative predictions were plainly wrong. Leaner, stronger auto manufacturers are seeing their profits grow, and they're creating jobs again, all while paying back taxpayers.

Michelle Krebs, senior analyst at Edmunds.com, said this week that opposition to the rescue "sounds great on principle," but we now know it was necessary. "The failure of GM would have had a domino effect," Krebs said. "It would have crippled the supplier base and all of the other manufacturers who build here would also have been hurt or shut down."

And yet, even now, the right thinks the president made the wrong call. It's a striking reminder of the failure of conservative ideology -- even when presented with evidence of a program that constitutes an "unqualified success," the right can't admit it worked, because the initiative runs counter to their ideological demands.

It's almost sad to see an entire school of political thought reach this level of intellectual bankruptcy.

For his part, President Obama noted this morning that GM's stock offering "marks a major milestone in the turnaround of not just an iconic company but the entire American auto industry.... Supporting the American auto industry required tough decisions and shared sacrifices, but it helped save jobs, rescue an industry at the heart of America's manufacturing sector, and make it more competitive for the future."

Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

AILES SPEAKS.... Roger Ailes spent years as a Republican operative before becoming president of Fox News, which when you think about it, is largely the same thing. But for all of Ailes' influence, he doesn't do a lot of interviews himself, letting his Republican hosts get his message out.

It was interesting, then, to see Ailes speak freely with the Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz. Yesterday, that meant trashing President Obama. In today's report, it meant going after those in media Ailes disapproves of.

For example, Ailes lashed out at Jon Stewart, saying "The Daily Show" host "openly admits he's sort of an atheist and a socialist."

"He hates conservative views. He hates conservative thoughts. He hates conservative verbiage. He hates conservatives."

There was more. "He's crazy. If it wasn't polarized, he couldn't make a living. He makes a living by attacking conservatives and stirring up a liberal base against it."

I tried to interrupt.

"He loves polarization. He depends on it. If liberals and conservatives are all getting along, how good would that show be? It'd be a bomb."

Hmm. Stewart is "crazy" and relies on "polarization"? Isn't that what's popularly known as "projection"?

But Ailes saves his real vitriol for the executives at NPR.

"They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don't want any other point of view. They don't even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda."

There's a lot of madness in those 40 words, but I'd note that using "Nazi" isn't just a slip of the tongue when one uses it three times. I'd also note that, every time I turn on NPR, the "point of view" tends to be that of one of its many Republican guests.

As for Ailes' concerns about "propaganda," the irony is rich.

Steve Benen 12:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share

DON'T REPEAT FAILURE AND EXPECT SUCCESS.... When Republican policymakers slashed taxes early in George W. Bush's first term, they had high hopes about what the policy would achieve. Americans were told, for example, that these tax cuts would create millions of jobs, keep a balanced budget, and generate robust economic growth.

As this tax policy gets ready to expire next month, it's worth noting that the Republican plan failed rather spectacularly. On job creation, Bush's record was the worst since the Great Depression. On balancing the budget, Bush racked up the biggest deficits ever, and added $5 trillion to the debt, en route to being labeled "the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of the republic" by his comptroller general.

But what about economic growth? Did the Republican tax policy generate the robust economy Bush promised? David Leonhardt, responding to a Fox News item, sets the record straight.

Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.

The competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). The decade with the second-worst showing for growth was 1971 to 1980 -- the dreaded 1970s -- but it still had 3.21 percent average growth.

The picture does not change if you instead look at five-year periods.

This isn't a subjective question open to debate; we tried a policy and we can evaluate its results. In this case, Republicans said Bush's tax policy would produce wonders for the economy, and they got exactly what they wanted. We now know, however, that the policy didn't generate robust growth, didn't create millions of new jobs, didn't spur entrepreneurship and innovation, and certainly didn't keep a balanced budget.

And now, as the failed tax policy is set to expire, what's the new Republican message? That this policy must be extended at all costs, and anyone who disagrees is putting the economy at risk.

They not only say this with a straight face, the argument in support of a policy we already know didn't work manages to scare a whole lot of Dems.

Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* After Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) declared victory in Alaska last night, the Republican Party of Alaska issued a statement calling on their nominee, Joe Miller, to "respect the will of the voters and end his campaign in a dignified manner."

* Miller, at this point, appears to have other plans. The Republican extremist has not conceded, and told Fox News last night that he has concerns about the vote-counting process in Alaska. Miller has not ruled out calling for a statewide hand recount.

* RNC Chairman Michael Steele still hopes to win another term, but some powerful Republican players continue to work to prevent it. Yesterday, Govs. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) and Rick Perry (R-Texas) -- the outgoing and income chairmen of the Republican Governors Association -- both called for Steele to be replaced.

* Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) will have to run for a full term in just two years, and Republicans still hope to convince Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) to run against him. Capito, who considered the 2010 race over the summer before deciding to seek re-election to the House, said yesterday of the 2012 Senate race, "I'm not ruling it out by any stretch."

* Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who announced this week that he'll seek another term in 2012, remains the most popular political figure in Indiana. Whether that's enough for him to avoid a right-wing primary challenger remains to be seen.

* Freshmen congressional lawmakers won't actually cast votes until next year, but they're already trying to raise money, some to retire campaign debts, some in preparation for the next election.

* And there was some debate recently about whether former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) intended to run for president in 2012, and I was in the "of course she's running" camp. As of yesterday, it looks like my side was correct.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

HOW TO BE A BAD SENATOR.... A month ago, the Obama administration lifted the moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which at a minimum, should have meant that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) would finally lift her ridiculous hold on Jack Lew's OMB nomination.

Lew was poised to be confirmed easily as White House Office of Management and Budget's new director, but Landrieu intervened, blocking the nomination until the drilling moratorium was overturned. What do Lew and the OMB have to do with drilling? Nothing. She was looking for a hostage, and he was a convenient choice.

More than a month later, the center-right Louisianan, still inclined to put the oil industry's needs above all else, still can't bring herself to do the responsible thing.

"My position is unchanged," Landrieu, of Louisiana, told reporters on a conference call. "I'm very sympathetic to the administration's position. I understand how difficult it is to go without a point person for the budget."

Landrieu said she would consider lifting her block on Lew when a "clear path forward" is made for issuing permits for deepwater drilling in the Gulf.

"When that happens, I'll consider releasing my hold," she said.

Landrieu first demanded that the moratorium be lifted, and it was. But now she won't release her hostage until she's satisfied with the rate at which drilling permits are released -- at which point she'll "consider" letting the government function again as it should.

Keep in mind, Landrieu doesn't object to Jack Lew. On the contrary, she's described him as an "outstanding" choice to head the OMB, and would be more than happy to vote for his confirmation -- just as soon as the oil industry seems fully satisfied. Until then, she just doesn't care about the consequences.

In this case, those consequences aren't just minor inconveniences. The Office of Management and Budget is poised to start writing the 2012 budget, and it needs a budget director. But there is no budget director, because Mary Landrieu, in a move that's been fairly described as "both absurd and irresponsible," has decided her demands are more important the administration's ability to govern.

Landrieu's reckless stunt is an embarrassment to the institution, and makes the need for Senate reform even more painfully obvious.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

BELIEVING WHAT THEY'RE TOLD TO BELIEVE.... A new report this week from the Pew Research Center shows what we probably could have guessed: conservatives in America reject evidence of global warming. But Pew study also raises an important related point: it didn't use to be this way.

Pew found that a 53% majority of self-identified Republicans believe there is no solid evidence the earth is warming. Among "Tea Party" Republicans, the results were even worse, with 70% concluding that the climate science is wrong. This isn't exactly surprising.

But reader H.S. flagged a key detail about the trend in attitudes:

Disbelief in global warming in the GOP is a recent occurrence. Just a few years ago, in 2007, a 62%-majority of Republicans said there is solid evidence of global warming, while less than a third (31%) said there is no solid evidence. Currently, just 38% of Republicans say there is solid evidence the earth is warming, and only 16% say that warming is caused by human activity. In 2007, three-in-ten Republicans said global warming was the result of human activity.

The national trend is discouraging enough. As recently as July 2006, a whopping 79% of the country believed there's solid evidence pointing to global warming. Four years later, as the evidence has grown stronger, Americans' beliefs have grown weaker -- now only 59% believe there's solid evidence.

But the trend is largely a partisan one -- fewer Americans accept the science because the right has rejected reality so thoroughly.

The larger point to keep in mind is the effect of the discourse. A few years ago, Republican voters, by and large, believed what the mainstream believed when it came to climate science. Then their party, its candidates, and its media outlets told these voters to stop believing the facts -- and rank-and-file Republicans did as they were told. In effect, partisans on the right outsourced their evaluation of evidence to their party, and Republicans decided climate science is no longer worthy of support.

This happens more than it should. If I had to guess, if you asked regular ol' Republican voters several years ago whether the United States should engage in torture, they probably would have said no. But then their party told them to change their mind, and they did. If you asked these GOP voters whether a health care mandate, in line with Republican proposals, was a reasonable policy, they probably would have said yes. But then their party told them to change their mind, and they did.

This really isn't healthy.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

THE MOST PROLIFIC AUTHOR OF OUR TIME.... An interesting press release made the rounds yesterday, announcing the upcoming release of a new book called, "Seven Wonders That Will Change Your Life."

Glenn Beck and Dr. Keith Ablow -- two of the most popular and influential personalities in American media today -- have joined forces to present a powerful guide to personal transformation and fulfillment that is as unique as their own unlikely partnership. They are called the "7 Wonders" and they can be used by anyone who has made the decision that they are ready to change their life. [...]

Where does the courage to persevere come from when everything seems hopeless? Why is it nearly impossible to succeed with faith? How much do family and friendships matter in our journey? How do we break down our walls and reveal our inner truths? What does having compassion really mean? How do you tell real friends apart from those who are holding you back? If there's no one to blame for my past, what do you do with your anger and resentment?

Some of those wonders don't sound especially wondrous, but I suppose that doesn't much matter -- someone willing to drop $24.99 on a Glenn Beck self-help book probably has some deeper issues anyway.

What struck me as noteworthy, though, is Beck's remarkable ability to churn out books for his minions to buy.

It started in late 2007, with "An Inconvenient Book." A year later, Beck released a Christmas book. He released his next book in June 2009, and then another in September 2009. He released an audio book in May 2009, and another audio book in February 2010. Late last year, Beck even released a photo-companion book to his Christmas book.

His novel was published in June, which was followed by "Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure" in October. This "Seven Wonders" self-help book comes out in January.

In the 20 months spanning May 2009 to January 2011, Beck will have published five print books, a photo book, and two audio books.

For a guy who seems to read at a third-grade level -- remember, he thinks the word "OLIGARH" is missing a "y" -- Beck may very well be America's most prolific author.

By some estimates, Beck takes in as much as $32 million a year. Does he really need to exploit his followers so shamelessly? I guess so.

Steve M's recent assessment continues to ring true: "So now we see what Glenn Beck really is: He's basically a televangelist. A huckster. A late-night pitchman selling seminars and book/DVD/audio combo packages that will allegedly help you get rich through flipping real estate. A human-potential-movement cult leader who promises life breakthroughs in exchange for participation in costly 'religious' or 'therapy' programs."

Update: In case there's any confusion about this, of course I don't think Beck actually wrote any of these books. When I describe as an "author," I'm kidding. The guy can barely spell, better yet write six books in a year and a half.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

ABOUT THAT GHAILANI VERDICT.... Ahmed Ghailani, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, was convicted yesterday in a federal criminal court on terrorist conspiracy charges. That, however, is a small part of a much larger story.

Ghailani was actually facing 284 other counts of terrorism-related charges, but a civilian jury acquitted him on all of those other charges. The defendant could be sentenced to life in prison for the conviction, but Ghailani being cleared of 284 out of 285 charges is likely to have a considerable political impact.

Specifically, the Obama administration has argued, accurately, that trying Guantanamo detainees in U.S. civilian courts is the appropriate course. Conservatives, and some scared Democrats, have said convictions are more difficult in American courts, and prefer military commissions.

And given yesterday's outcome, the right is back to having a field day.

"This is a tragic wake-up call to the Obama Administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantanamo terrorists" in federal civilian courts, said Representative Peter King, Republican of New York. "We must treat them as wartime enemies and try them in military commissions at Guantánamo." [...]

Several other soon-to-be-powerful Republican lawmakers -- including Lamar Smith of Texas, in the incoming Judiciary Committee chairman -- made similar statements denouncing the use of civilian courts to prosecute terrorism cases.

Now, the obvious response is to note that Republicans' case is unpersuasive. Not only was Ghailani convicted of a charge that will likely lead to life behind bars, but the track record with military commissions is pretty awful. As Colin Powell noted earlier this year, "In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial. Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail. Meanwhile, the federal courts -- our Article III, regular legal court system -- has put dozens of terrorists in jail and they're fully capable of doing it."

But we can go even further here. Note, for example, what a senior administration official told ABC's Jake Tapper.

"He was convicted by a jury of a count which carries a 20-year minimum sentence," the official says. "He will very likely be sentenced to something closer to life. (The judge can, and very likely will, take into account things that the jury did not, and he can and will consider conduct that the jury found him not guilty of -- e.g., murder). He will never be paroled (there is no parole in the federal system). There are very few federal crimes that carry a mandatory MINIMUM of 20 years. What that means is that he was convicted of a crime that is a very big deal."

"So, we tried a guy (who the Bush Admin tortured and then held at GTMO for 4-plus years with no end game whatsoever) in a federal court before a NY jury with full transparency and international legitimacy and -- despite all of the legacy problems of the case (i.e., evidence getting thrown out because of Bush-Admin torture, etc,) we were STILL able to convict him and INCAPACITATE him for essentially the rest of his natural life, AND there was not one -- not one -- security problem associated with the trial."

"Would it have been better optically if he had been convicted of more counts? Sure. Would it have made any practical difference? No."

You can expect Republicans to take the offensive on this today. You can also expect their arguments to be entirely wrong.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

THE SUDDENLY-UNPOPULAR APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.... For years, members of the House, from both parties, desperately wanted to be assigned to the Appropriations Committee. And why not? It was the panel that allowed members to steer funds to their districts, which tended to make them pretty popular back home.

But as the 112th Congress takes shape, it appears no one's anxious to accept this once-plum committee assignment.

A band of conservative rebels has taken over the House, vowing to slash spending, cut the deficit and kill earmarks.

And of course they'd love a seat on the powerhouse Appropriations Committee so they can translate their campaign zeal into action, right?

Not really.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was asked to be an appropriator and said thanks, but no thanks. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a tea party favorite, turned down a shot at Appropriations, which controls all discretionary spending. So did conservatives like Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an ambitious newcomer who will lead the influential Republican Study Committee.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who hopes to be the committee's chairman, noted, "Anybody who's a Republican right now, come June, is going to be accused of hating seniors, hating education, hating children, hating clean air and probably hating the military and farmers, too.... There's going to be a lot of tough votes. So some people may want to shy away from the committee. I understand it."

At Daily Kos, Susan Gardner added yesterday, "Yeah, be careful what you ask for. You get elected grandstanding about government overspending, you might actually have to ... you know, put your name to specifics on where to cut government spending. And no one wants to run two years down the line on killing popular programs -- and every program has some constituency that actually uses it, benefits from it, feels allegiance to it."

Quite right. It wasn't an accident that, throughout the campaign season, Republican candidates balked when asked to talk about what they intended to cut if given power. For all their bravado about how the "American people" just love cutting spending, and elected Republiacns to do just that, many GOP officials are well aware of the dirty little secret -- spending cuts can not only undermine economic growth, they also tend to be pretty unpopular.

Kingston's quote actually telegraphed where Republicans intend to go -- the GOP is looking to cut funding for schools, seniors, clean air, farmers, and the military.

The 30-second ads for 2012 will practically write themselves. If I were a Republican lawmaker, beholden to an unhinged base, I'd probably want to avoid the Appropriations Committee, too.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

DEMS SET STAGE FOR DADT SHOWDOWN IN DECEMBER.... As recently as last week, there was quite a bit of talk about Senate Democrats caving on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Leaders knew they have to pass the military spending bill (the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA), and if Republicans were prepared to kill the measure over DADT, Dems looked like they'd blink first.

This week, there's been a shift in the other direction. President Obama has reportedly been working the phones, urging "dozens of Senators from both sides of the aisle" to approve the spending bill just as it is, leaving the repeal language intact.

By late yesterday, the Senate leadership announced it's not caving, setting the stage for a December showdown

In a direct challenge to Republicans who support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he would push ahead with a military policy bill that includes language authorizing the Pentagon to repeal the ban. [...]

[T]he White House on Wednesday repeated President Obama's commitment to repealing the ban. In a statement later in the day, Mr. Reid said he would bring the bill to the floor, with the repeal language in place. "We need to repeal this discriminatory policy so that any American who wants to defend our country can do so," Mr. Reid said.

Senate Democratic aides said Mr. Reid would try to take up the bill sometime in December, meaning after the Pentagon is due to release a report on how it would carry out a repeal. The report includes a survey of active-duty forces and their families, which shows that a majority do not care if gay men and women serve openly.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who supports DADT repeal but was rumored to be in talks to concede to Republican demands, applauded Reid's announcement. Levin will hold (hopefully brief) hearings on the Pentagon survey immediately after its release, to be followed by a floor vote on the overall spending bill.

The trick, of course, will be getting to 60, since Senate Republicans, led by leading anti-gay Sen. John McCain, won't allow the chamber to vote on troop funding if the DADT provision remains in the bill. Making matters slightly worse, by the time of the vote, the Senate will be split 58-42 in Dems' favor, instead of the current 59-41, meaning the majority will need two Republicans to break ranks, not just one.

On that front, the key will be Reid's willingness to have an extended debate. Greg Sargent reported yesterday that a handful of Senate Republicans would be willing to help Dems overcome a filibuster if the majority leadership allows Republicans to offer a series of amendments -- a move that could take two weeks out of an already-brief lame-duck session.

With that in mind, the Washington Post reported today, "In a key concession to moderate Republicans seeking a fair debate on the measure, Reid is expected to allow senators of both parties to offer amendments to the bill, aides said. The move could lead to the support of at least some senators who have said they would vote to end the ban if Reid permits them to offer amendments."

It seems a little foolish to think moderate Republicans would kill troop funding and allow DADT discrimination to continue based on a procedural dispute over unknown legislative amendments, but that's apparently the dynamic we're dealing with.

All it will take, then, is two Republicans willing to do the right thing.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 17, 2010

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

* Hoping to prevent a disaster in Ireland: "A top British finance official said Wednesday that his country would help prop up Ireland's ailing finances - even as a team from the International Monetary Fund and European Union prepared to travel here to address the crisis and the Irish government signaled, for the first time, that it might be willing to accept a bailout."

* It wasn't as one-sided as some had guessed, but House Democrats today chose Nancy Pelosi to be the House Minority leader next year. She won with 150 votes from caucus members, 107 more than Heath Shuler received.

* On the other side of the aisle, House Republicans unanimously chose their leadership team today, including John Boehner for Speaker and Eric Cantor for Majority Leader.

* A big day for GM tomorrow.

* Is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal dead? Not just yet.

* It looks like a real long-shot, but President Obama thinks Congress can and should pass the DREAM Act during the lame-duck session.

* More petty gamesmanship: "House Republicans announced Wednesday they plan to force a floor vote on defunding NPR in response to the firing of analyst Juan Williams last month."

* Warren Buffett uses an op-ed to thank government, specifically the Bush administration, for pulling the country back from financial doom during the financial crisis of 2008.

* All of those far-right cranks worried about inflation? They're deeply confused.

* I'm starting to think some of the far-right's opposition to President Obama is racist. Take Rush Limbaugh, for example.

* Birtherism in the Texas legislature is very likely a sign of things to come.

* Good question: "Exactly what ... would be an inappropriate amount of money to spend on college?"

* "Negotiation," by Clay Bennett, is one of my favorite political cartoons of the year.

* I'm really sorry to see the Washington Independent close its virtual doors. It did some amazing work over the last three years, served as a launching pad for some terrific journalists, and it'll be missed.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

WE NEED A STRONG POLITICAL SYSTEM.... Following up on an earlier item, Matt Cooper's report on Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) betrayal on the new arms control treaty with Russia, New START, included a tidbit that's worth emphasizing.

Coming after a disappointing Asian trip for the president, the debacle can't help Obama's standing abroad. For instance, part of the reason he failed to secure a trade deal with South Korea on his recent trip was Seoul's concern about ratification prospects in the Senate. This kind of blow can only heighten those concerns in South Korea and in other nations that have treaties pending with the U.S.

After South Korea pulled back from its trade deal with the U.S. last week, there was plenty of talk about how President Obama couldn't "close the deal." What was largely overlooked is the fact that South Korea officials are well aware of the political circumstances in Washington, and they weren't prepared to trust our legislative branch of government to do the right thing.

After all, if Republican lawmakers are prepared to kill a strong nuclear arms treaty that advances America's national security interests, why would South Korea, or any other country, expect those same Republican lawmakers to be responsible when it comes to issues like trade?

I tend to dismiss talk about "American decline" and phrases like "once-great superpower," because I have genuine confidence in the strength of the country. I have no doubt that it's within our power to make wise decisions and remain the global leader. But the talk of decline seems harder to just casually disregard when we see the way our legislative branch ceases to function and the extent to which one of our major political party descends into madness.

The United States still has the most dynamic economy, the strongest military, the best universities, and the most creative entrepreneurs, but our future depends in part on the health of our political system. And right now, Republicans are taking a sledgehammer to this component of the American foundation -- and they do so without embarrassment, in part because they're overwhelmed by a misguided ideology, and in part because they loathe our elected president.

This debate over New START drives the point home nicely. Top officials from the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have pleaded with Republicans to be grown-ups about this, and do right by American national security. At this point, GOP officials refuse -- and can't explain why. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) announced today he'll oppose the treaty because he fears the "Soviet" threat. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), an alleged moderate, said today he's inclined to kill the treaty out of a fear that it "diminishes the national security of our friends and allies throughout Europe" -- apparently unaware that our friends and allies throughout Europe support ratification of the treaty Voinovich is prepared to destroy.

South Korean leaders see this and resist trade deals. Russian leaders see this and it emboldens their hard-liners. Countries around the world watch our deliberations, shake their heads, and wonder why the U.S. would choose to allow such political dysfunction to continue.

And best of all, this will get considerably worse in just a couple of months, thanks to the midterm elections.

We really have to do better than this.

Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

MURKOWSKI WINS IMPROBABLE WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN.... As a rule, candidates don't win statewide campaigns unless their names actually appear on the ballot. There are, however, exceptions.

Write-in candidate Sen. Lisa Murkowski has won the Alaska Senate race, according to the Associated Press.

The win became official when Alaska Elections officials announced that there were only 700 votes left, giving Murkowski a 10,000 vote lead over her opponent, Republican nominee Joe Miller.

The Miller campaign contested 8,153 write-in ballots that were counted for Murkowski, but she is still ahead by enough unchallenged votes to win the race.

Miller hasn't conceded, and has talked about seeking a statewide hand recount, but Murkowski has scheduled an event for this afternoon in Anchorage, where she's expected to declare victory.

Murkowski is only the second U.S. Senate candidate to win by way of a write-in campaign in modern American history. The only other example came in 1954, with Strom Thurmond's (R) first Senate bid in South Carolina.

With the AP's announcement this afternoon, there are no remaining unresolved Senate races. Next year's Senate will have 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two Independents who caucus with Democrats.

But before we move on, let's briefly revisit some Twitter messages from Joe Miller, published about a month before the election.

"Think I'll do some house hunting while I'm in DC," one of them read.

And then: "Guess I should pick out some office furniture, as well ..."

Plus: "Then there's matter of a name plaque for the door."

A fourth tweet referred to Senate Republicans as his "future colleagues."

The messages were pretty obnoxious at the time. Seven weeks later, they're hilarious.

As for Murkowski, it'll be interesting to see her partisan postures, or lack thereof, in the near future. Remember, she's probably not thrilled with how the primary shook out, how some of her own colleagues (Jim DeMint, she's looking at you) backed Miller's challenge, how her party was still fundraising in support of Miller's campaign days after the election, with subtle allegations that Murkowski would use underhanded tactics to win. For that matter, Murkowski may also realize she won in part thanks to support from Democratic voters, who considered her a reasonable alternative to Miller.

Don't be too surprised if Murkowski, when she returns to the Senate, is slightly more open to Democratic outreach than she has been.

Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

SENATE REPUBLICANS KILL PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT.... In the last Congress, the House approved the Paycheck Fairness Act, only to see it die in the face of a Republican filibuster. This year, it's happened again.

The first bill President Obama signed after taking office was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made it easier for women to seek justice for pay discrimination. At the time, Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) joined with Democrats to overcome strong Republican opposition to the bill.

But today, all three Republican senators voted against a motion to proceed on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that "would further strengthen current laws against gender-based wage discrimination." [...]

Women earn barely three-quarters of what their male counterparts make for the same work, but conservatives have invented a number of ludicrous reasons for opposing equal pay legislation. For example, the Heritage Foundation has suggested that equal pay laws actually hurt women because businesses simply won't hire them if they are required to pay them fair wages. And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has claimed that women would receive better compensation if they just had more "education and training."

The final tally was 58 senators supporting the measure, and 41 opposing. Because our Senate is often ridiculous, 41 trumps 58.

What's more, note that this was only a vote on the motion to proceed. In other words, opponents didn't just disagree with the proposal, they filibustered a measure that would have let the Senate debate the idea.

And what did those opponents have in common? Looking at the roll call, every Republican in the chamber voted to kill the Paycheck Fairness Act, while every Democratic except one supported it. The lone exception was, of course, Ben Nelson.

Soon after, President Obama issued a statement, noting, "I am deeply disappointed that a minority of Senators have prevented the Paycheck Fairness Act from finally being brought up for a debate and receiving a vote. This bill passed in the House almost two years ago; today, it had 58 votes to move forward, the support of the majority of Senate, and the support of the majority of Americans. As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination. It also helps businesses that pay equal wages as they struggle to compete against discriminatory competition. But a partisan minority of Senators blocked this commonsense law. Despite today's vote, my Administration will continue to fight for a woman's right to equal pay for equal work."

Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

THE EASILY-FORGOTTEN PLEDGE.... Popular lore tells us that Newt Gingrich & Co. boldly unveiled the "Contract with America" in 1994, and soon after, Republicans claimed House and Senate majorities. We're supposed to see a causal relationship -- the GOP thrived because of the "Contract."

A closer look suggests otherwise. Most Americans had no idea the "Contract" existed before Election Day, and there's very little evidence to suggest the poll-tested document made any real difference in the results.

Sixteen years later, House Republicans unveiled the "Pledge to America." Chris Cillizza noted yesterday that some are asking whether history repeated itself.

Two weeks removed from an election that saw their party gain at least 60 seats and recapture control of the House, Republicans are engaged in an active debate over whether their much-hyped "Pledge to America" deserves credit for the victory. [...]

"The pledge significantly strengthened the fall campaign," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), the architect of the 1994 Contract. Gingrich estimated that the Pledge "may have added 20 seats" to the Republican pickup on Nov. 2.

Even for Republicans, this is deeply silly. GOP leaders unveiled their "Pledge," and then largely forgot about it. Republican candidates weren't running around touting their support for the agenda; it wasn't included in any major advertising; and if I had to guess, I'd say independent polling would show a tiny percentage of Americans who said their vote was actually influenced by the widely-panned 21-page document.

Indeed, we don't really have to guess. Less than a month before Election Day, and two weeks after the "Pledge" was released, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of the country had no idea what the "Pledge" was. In fact, only 37% of self-identified Republicans had heard of their own party's 2010 agenda. What's more, among those who had heard of the "Pledge," the proposal hadn't won anyone over -- 45% said the agenda doesn't make any difference, 29% said it makes them less likely to vote Republican, and 23% said it makes a GOP vote more likely.

To argue with a straight face that this contributed to Republican successes is absurd. The "Pledge" was forgotten almost immediately after it was unveiled.

What I suspect is going on here is that some Republicans want to pretend they have a mandate -- they presented old, tired, failed, and discredited ideas; then they won; therefore Americans want Congress to adopt those old, tired, failed, and discredited ideas.

But this only works if the electorate actually knew of the document and liked its contents.

A senior Republican consultant told Cillizza that "if we didn't have the Pledge to America we would have picked up the exact same number of seats....it didn't get or lose us a vote."

That's clearly true.

Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE CONGRESS SHOULD LISTEN TO THEM.... Congress is poised to take up some pretty weighty issues during the lame-duck session, and at this point, a new CNN poll shows Americans siding with Democrats on all of them.

Only a third of all Americans think Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for families regardless of how much money they make, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday also indicates a vast majority of the public is in favor of allowing openly gay people to serve in the U.S. military. Both issues are high on the agenda for federal lawmakers who have returned to the nation's capitol this week for the lame duck session of Congress.

Republicans feel like they have the upper hand on taxes, but only a third of the country supports the GOP approach. Likewise, Republicans appear positioned to kill a key nuclear arms treaty, but 73% support Senate ratification of New START.

But it's the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" results that really stand out. The top-line results are pretty one-sided -- 72% want DADT to end, while 23% want it left in place. The country is pretty divided right now, and 72% of Americans don't agree on much, but Americans have been hearing about this issue for quite a while, and they seem to have made up their minds.

But also look at the internals -- support for DADT repeal is so broad, it spans both genders, every race, every age group, every region, every party, every ideology, and every level of education. Even among Republicans, the Democratic position enjoys overwhelming support (64% to 31%). This is about as close as we get to "consensus."

And yet, despite this, GOP officials on the Hill are still planning to kill repeal this year, and keep the unpopular policy intact for years to come. Adding insult to injury, those on the left are largely fighting amongst themselves, instead of going after Republican lawmakers who stand in the way of success.

Putting that aside, though, in the post-election environment, Republicans have been going around quite a bit lately, insisting that policymakers need to "listen to the American people." I guess that sentiment doesn't apply when Republicans don't like what they hear.

Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

SELF-PARODY WATCH.... "Of Thee I Sing," a children's book written by President Obama, was released this week. It was written, apparently, before the president's inauguration last year, and proceeds will go to a fund helping children of wounded and killed servicemen and women.

As a political matter, the book wouldn't seem particularly controversial. The book is a letter from a father to his daughters, highlighting 13 legendary American figures, whose greatest qualities Obama sees in today's youth. The point is to celebrate "the characteristics that unite all Americans, from our nation's founders to generations to come."

Amidst the stories on George Washington, Jackie Robinson, and Georgia O'Keeffe, Obama also noted Sitting Bull, noting, "Sitting Bull was a Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises. It is fine that we are different, he said, 'for peace, it is not necessary for eagles to be crows.' Though he was put in prison, his spirit soared free on the plains, and his wisdom touched the generations."

Fox News ran a report on the book yesterday. The headline read:

Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General

Seriously. That really was the headline on a report on the president's children's book.

Steve Benen 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

INSURERS SPENT HEAVILY TO KILL HEALTH CARE REFORM.... I know there are some critics of the Affordable Care Act on the left who considered the entire reform initiative a "giveaway" to insurance companies.

But private insurers really didn't see it that way.

Health insurers last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health-care overhaul law, according to tax records and people familiar with the donation.

The insurance lobby, whose members include Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Philadelphia-based Cigna Corp., gave the money to the Chamber in 2009 as Democrats were increasing their criticism of the industry, according to one person who requested anonymity because laws don't require identifying funding sources. The Chamber of Commerce received the money from the Washington-based America's Health Insurance Plans when the industry was urging Congress to drop a plan to create a competing public insurance option.

The spending exceeded the insurer group's entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber's $214.6 million in 2009 spending.

According to a Chamber of Commerce spokesperson, the business lobby used the insurance industry's $86.2 million to pay for "advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill."

Keep in mind, this only covers anti-reform spending in 2009 -- the crusade to kill the initiative grew even more intense earlier this year, in the months leading up to March passage, though those spending figures are not yet available.

What's more, the $86.2 million from insurance companies only reflects the money the industry quietly gave to the Chamber, all while saying publicly that insurers would play a constructive role.

Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* It looks like the U.S. Senate race in Alaska is just about done with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) taking a 10,400-vote lead over Joe Miller (R). There are still 8,153 ballots Miller's team is challenging, but they wouldn't be enough to give him a victory.

* As of this morning, though, Miller was still questioning the tally. He suggested a statewide hand-recount may be in order.

* Rep. Melissa Bean (D) conceded defeat yesterday, after final tallies showed Rep.-elect Joe Walsh (R) with a 291-vote lead. Overall, the net gain for House Republicans in the midterms now stands at 61 seats.

* Sen. John Ensign (R) will apparently seek re-election in Nevada, unless he's imprisoned for his corruption scandal, which would probably interfere with his campaign schedule.

* To say that Republican leaders on the Hill want Michael Steele replaced as RNC chairman would appear to be an understatement.

* It seems awfully early to look at polls for a race that's two years away, but for what it's worth, a new survey in Virginia from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Jim Webb (D) leading former Sen. George Allen (R) in a hypothetical match-up, 49% to 45%. Webb, of course, has not yet said whether he intends to seek a second term, but Allen has made no secret of his comeback intentions.

* Perhaps the most sought after GOP endorsement in Iowa's presidential caucuses is failed former gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats', who's creating a right-wing organization in the Hawkeye State.

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

Bookmark and Share

CREATE JOBS, LOWER THE DEFICIT.... For all the talk about tax rates and government spending, with deficit fears hanging over head, there's one sure-fire way to improve the nation's finances. As David Leonhardt explained today, it's a largely-overlooked approach called "economic growth."

We look back on the late 1990s as a rare time when the federal government ran budget surpluses. We tend to forget that those surpluses came as a surprise to almost everybody.

As late as 1998, the Congressional Budget Office was predicting a deficit for 1999. In fact, Washington ran its biggest surplus in five decades.

What happened? Above all, economic growth. And that may be a big part of the answer to our current problems.

Yes, the government became more fiscally conservative in the 1990s. Both President George H. W. Bush (who doesn't get enough credit) and President Bill Clinton, working with Congress, raised taxes to attack the 1980s deficits.

But those tax increases were the second most important reason for the surpluses that followed. The most important was the fact that the economy grew more rapidly than expected. The faster growth pushed up incomes and caused more tax revenue to flow into the Treasury.

Given the size of the current deficit, growth almost certainly won't be enough to balance the budget anytime soon, even if the economy grows much faster than expected, which seems unlikely. But growth was responsible for reducing the deficit over the last year, and the more things improved, the lower the deficit will be -- without slashing spending.

Indeed, perhaps the most astounding aspect of Republican rhetoric on the economy lately is how contradictory it is. On the one hand, a top GOP goal is, at least in theory, deficit reduction. On the other hand, those same Republicans want more tax cuts (which makes the deficit worse), and spending cuts that would likely slow the economy (which also makes the deficit worse).

Digby added, "Why Democrats haven't been saying 'jobs=deficit reduction' on a loop, I don't know. I guess they figure it's just too complicated to explain that when people aren't working they aren't paying taxes so the government doesn't have as much money."

I'm guessing the same thing. It's easier to talk about "belt tightening" during a downturn than it is to explain how economic growth leads to revenues leads to deficit reduction.

But I'd sure like to see Dems talk up this idea anyway. It's not that complicated; the 1990s offer a recent model of success; and no one outside the far-right really wants those brutal spending cuts anyway.

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S AS IF THEY WANT TO MAKE UNEMPLOYMENT WORSE.... In times of economic distress and high unemployment, policymakers in Washington have a few options. Congress, for example, can make investments that spur growth and create jobs. Ideally, that's what we'd be seeing more of right now, but Republicans staunchly oppose any such efforts.

With stimulus off the table, we tend to look to the Federal Reserve, which is tasked not only with combating inflation, but also with a mandate to keep unemployment low.

Republicans have apparently decided this week that they disapprove of this, too.

Criticism of the Federal Reserve intensified on Tuesday as conservative Republican lawmakers called for limiting the central bank's mandate to keeping inflation low. They said that the Fed should stop trying to pursue the twin goals of balancing inflation and unemployment, as it has been required to do since 1977.

The Republican proposal was the latest example of the increasingly partisan antipathy toward the Fed's decision on Nov. 3 to inject $600 billion into the economy in an effort to lower long-term interest rates.

The legislation would be anathema to most Democrats, who say they believe that low inflation and low unemployment should be given equal weight. The latest proposal appears to be gathering support among Republicans, who will control the House starting in January, but is all but certain to be blocked by Democrats if it reaches the Senate.

It's tough to fully grasp exactly why the GOP would want this, but the rationale appears to go something like this: the Fed has intervened in the economy to help prevent massive unemployment, joblessness is still high, so the Fed should no longer try to prevent massive unemployment.

The perpetually confused Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said "the onus for growing jobs in this country should not fall on the Fed, it should fall on policy makers in this administration and in this, and the coming, Congress."

First of all, that's a nice idea, but as a practical matter, that's impossible. Second of all, with unemployment as high as it is, there's plenty of room for all kinds of institutions to try to improve conditions.

Steven Pearlstein noted today, "It's not exactly clear how unemployed workers would benefit from the Fed's benign neglect."

The answer, of course, is that unemployed workers wouldn't benefit at all, but that's irrelevant to Republican goals. Theirs is an ideological crusade; what works and who benefits makes no difference whatsoever.

Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE GEORGE WILL SHOULD STEER CLEAR OF CAR COLUMNS.... A year ago, soon after the rescue of the American automotive industry, President Obama noted there's no reason the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid car, but we can't.

George Will was unimpressed. "I assume the president is talking about the Prius," Will said. "It's affordable because Toyota sells it at a loss, and it can afford to sell it at a loss because it is selling twice as many gas-guzzling pickup trucks of the sort our president detests."

As it turned out, Will was confused. Toyota used to sell hybrids at a loss back in 1997, but as industry and consumer trends changed, so too did profit margins. Toyota started making a profit on each Prius sold way back in 2001. Will wanted to take a cheap shot at the president over automotive policy, but he didn't bother to get his facts straight.

This week, Will returned to his thoughts on cars, blasting the Chevy Volt as having been "conceived to appease the automotive engineers in Congress, which knows that people will have to be bribed, with other people's money, to buy this $41,000 car that seats only four people (the 435-pound battery eats up space)."

Oops.

The Volt absolutely delivers on the promise of the vehicle concept as originally outlined by GM, combining the smooth, silent, efficient, low-emissions capability of an electric motor with the range and flexibility of an internal combustion engine.

It is a fully functional, no-compromise compact automobile that offers consumers real benefits in terms of lower running costs.

The more we think about the Volt, the more convinced we are this vehicle represents a real breakthrough. The genius of the Volt's powertrain is that it is actually capable of operating as a pure EV, a series hybrid, or as a parallel hybrid to deliver the best possible efficiency, depending on your duty cycle. For want of a better technical descriptor, this is world's first intelligent hybrid. And the investment in the technology that drives this car is also an investment in the long-term future of automaking in America.

Moonshot. Game-changer. A car of the future that you can drive today, and every day. So what should we call Chevrolet's astonishing Volt? How about, simply, Motor Trend's 2011 Car of the Year.

Jon Chait mocked: "Will sneers at 'the automotive engineers in Congress,' though apparently his own automotive engineering sensibility towers above Motor Trend. Why has he been denying us his expert automobile criticism?"

The underlying concern, I suspect, is that Will didn't like Obama's rescue of the automotive industry, and hoped to see it fail. Rush Limbaugh was explicit on this point, insisting that conservative Americans "do not want [the president's] policy to work here."

But it did work. And if the Chevy Volt is a success, it means the industry bailout really did save GM and generate worthwhile results. It leads to columns like George Will's, which happen to be wrong.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share

A DELAY IN THE WHITE HOUSE'S BIPARTISAN CONFAB.... President Obama had scheduled a gathering at the White House for this week, featuring the leaders of both parties in both chambers. Yesterday, the meeting some reporters are calling the "Slurpee Summit" was postponed until Nov. 30, with congressional Republicans citing scheduling difficulties.

That, at face value, wouldn't be especially interesting. Meetings in D.C. get delayed all the time. But Politico reported last night that the postponement is the result of still more petty nonsense.

The roots of the partisan standoff that led to the postponement of the bipartisan White House summit scheduled for Thursday date back to January, when President Barack Obama crashed a GOP meeting in Baltimore to deliver a humiliating rebuke of House Republicans.

Obama's last-minute decision to address the House GOP retreat -- and the one-sided televised presidential lecture many Republicans decried as a political ambush -- has left a lingering distrust of Obama invitations and a wariness about accommodating every scheduling request emanating from the West Wing, aides tell POLITICO.

"He has a ways to go to rebuild the trust," said a top Republican Hill staffer. "The Baltimore thing was unbelievable. There were [House Republicans] who only knew Obama was coming when they saw Secret Service guys scouting out the place."

Now, the Politico piece has since been republished with a different lede, not because Republicans changed their story, but because the reporter realized the GOP version of events was demonstrably false.

Regardless, it's worth appreciating how bizarre this is. In January, House Republican leaders extended an invitation to the president, and he accepted. The arrangements were made weeks in advance, and Obama showed up on time, as expected. That Republicans would characterize this as a "last-minute decision" to "crash" their gathering suggests GOP officials have suffered some kind of head trauma. That Politico published their plainly untrue version of events without checking isn't much better.

But putting aside the fact that GOP memories have manufactured imaginary developments, what on earth does this have to do with the discussion scheduled for this week? Mitch McConnell postponed a meeting in November because the president made House Republicans look foolish in January?

At some point, it'd be great if the GOP leadership realized that Congress is not a junior high's student government.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

HOW TO CAPITALIZE ON GOP TAX POLICY OBSTINACY.... As far as Republican leaders on the Hill are concerned, a permanent tax break for the middle class is simply out of the question unless Dems agree to help millionaires and billionaires.

This is true in the Senate...

Republicans won't agree to allow a split in votes to extend expiring tax cuts, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday.

McConnell suggested that any vote to extend the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year were an all-or-nothing proposition, and that Republicans wouldn't agree to a separate vote on the extension of tax cuts for the highest income bracket.

"There's only one thing that's acceptable and that's to not raise taxes on anyone," McConnell said on conservative talker Sean Hannity's radio show. "We're not interested in bifurcating it."

...and it's true in the House.

The Republicans' top tax guy in the House threatened in the clearest possible terms today that he and the rest of the GOP would vote to block any tax cut for the middle class during the lame duck session unless tax cuts for the wealthy are extended for the same period of time.

In a policy speech at the business-friendly Tax Council today, incoming Ways and Means Committee chairman David Camp called the Democratic plan for tax cuts -- a permanent tax cut extension for all income up to $200,000, and a temporary extension for income above that level -- "a terrible idea and a total nonstarter."

In other words, nothing has changed. Dems wanted permanent breaks for the middle class, and Republicans are holding them hostage -- give us breaks for the wealthy, they say, or we'll kill the whole deal.

The more obstinacy from Republicans, the better this should be for Democrats. We're talking about aggressive, unyielding GOP opposition to middle-class tax cuts. If Republicans are intent on killing them, why on earth would Dems try to stop them?

As we talked about the other day, this should be pretty easy: bring middle-class tax cuts to the floor and dare Republicans to kill them. If the GOP caves, Dems get the policy they want. If the GOP kills the tax-cut package, Clinton-era rates return for everyone, which is probably the policy Dems should want anyway, and the headlines read, "Republicans kill tax cut compromise; higher rates kick in Jan. 1."

I've never seen a party so afraid of doing the obvious, popular thing that puts their rivals on the defensive. It's a gift-wrapped present that Dems seem afraid to open.

For his part, President Obama spoke to the Democratic leadership yesterday about the tax debate, which was intended to "get Democrats moving in the same direction after a week of seemingly conflicting messages." It was a private discussion, but according to accounts, the president reiterated his support for a permanent extension of lower rates "only for the middle class."

It's just scuttlebutt, but I also heard rumors yesterday that some Dems have a back-up plan in mind: if the party can hold firm on the middle-class-first policy and Republicans kill it, the White House can come back in January with a new package of "Obama tax cuts" that specifically target those families making $250,000 or less. Something to keep an eye on.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

THE FALLOUT OF KYL'S BETRAYAL.... The optimism hadn't been expressed publicly, but the White House really did think it finally had a deal in place for Senate ratification of the new arms control treaty with Russia, New START.

Republicans had made Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) their point man on the issue -- it's not clear why, since Kyl has no background or working knowledge of the issue -- and he made specific objections to the Obama administration clear. Officials, in response, gave Kyl what we asked for. The deal, they thought, was done.

Over many months of negotiations, the administration committed to spending $80 billion to do that over the next 10 years, and on Friday offered to chip in $4.1 billion more over the next five years. As a gesture of commitment, the White House had made sure extra money for modernization was included in the stopgap spending resolution now keeping the government operating, even though almost no other program received an increase in money.

All told, White House officials counted 29 meetings, phone calls, briefings or letters involving Mr. Kyl or his staff. They said they thought they had given him everything he wanted, and were optimistic about completing a deal this week, only to learn about his decision on Tuesday from reporters.

Kyl wouldn't even give the White House the courtesy of a phone call to let them know he was betraying them and the nation's national security needs. Worse, the dimwitted Kyl, with the future of American foreign policy in his hands, couldn't even give a coherent rationale for why he'd made the decision -- his office would only say "there doesn't appear to be enough time" in the lame-duck session.

This is what happens when serious officials try to negotiate in good faith with Republicans -- they refuse to take "yes" for an answer, they don't have intellectual capacity to explain why, and the entire country has to suffer the consequences.

The bulk of the Republican foreign policy apparatus enthusiastically supports this treaty, as does the entirety of America's military, diplomatic, and intelligence leadership. Matt Cooper noted late yesterday:

Indeed, Republicans will need to explain why they want to sit on a treaty that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has described this way: "I believe -- and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes -- that this treaty is essential to our future security. I believe it enhances and ensures that security. And I hope the Senate will ratify it quickly." [...]

There are risks for Republicans who follow Kyl and find themselves on the opposite side of the military and diplomatic community on ratification of the treaty.

There should be risks, but they don't really exist. Let me put this plainly: They. Don't. Care. They disregard the pleas of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and listen to the confused misjudgments of a buffoon from Arizona. They assume the public isn't paying attention, so there won't be political consequences. They expect this to hurt the foreign policy power of the United States, but they're fine with that since there's a Democratic president.

When it comes to Russia, inspection of the country's long-range nuclear bases will remain suspended indefinitely; the country's hard-liners will be emboldened; and Russia's willingness to cooperate with U.S. on Iran or on Afghanistan will likely disappear.

But in the bigger picture, countries around the globe will see this as a reminder that negotiating with the United States is pointless, since the country is burdened with a Republican Party that puts partisan hatred above the country's interests. It hurts American credibility in ways that are hard to even gauge.

Sleep well, Jon Kyl. Dream of the time when the United States had the respect and stature to lead the world.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 16, 2010

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

* Remember the European debt crisis? It's not over: "Ireland's Prime Minister acknowledged Tuesday that the country has been all but shut out from further borrowing on world bond markets as European leaders continued crisis talks over a possible rescue for the heavily indebted nation."

* Continental concerns are growing: "European officials, increasingly concerned that the Continent's debt crisis will spread, are warning that any new rescue plans may need to cover Portugal as well as Ireland to contain the problem they tried to resolve six months ago."

* Rangel's guilty: "A House panel on Tuesday found Representative Charles B. Rangel guilty of 11 counts of ethical violations, ruling that his failure to pay taxes, improper solicitation of fund-raising donations and failure to accurately report his personal income had brought dishonor on the House."

* Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) appears to be the first Dem in the Senate to endorse a tax plan that would only extend cuts for the middle class.

* A well-deserved, hard-earned honor for an American hero, Salvatore Giunta: "An Army staff sergeant who stepped into the line of fire to help a pair of comrades on the Afghan battlefield has been given a Medal of Honor, the nation's top military award." Giunta is the first living service member from the Iraq or Afghanistan wars to be so honored.

* Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinks the neocon line on Iran is crazy. He's right.

* I don't expect much in the way of decency from right-wing provocateur James O'Keefe, but his smearing of a special-ed schoolteacher in New Jersey is truly loathsome, even by his bottom-of-the-barrel standards.

* Rep. Louie Gohmert's (R) role in the firing of a college art galleries director in Texas wasn't much better.

* I find it pretty easy to believe that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), in the midst of health care reform negotiations, could get everything he wanted from the White House, and still refuse to support the proposal. The whole debate was about the GOP not taking "yes" for an answer.

* Everything you need to know about Gov.-elect Rick Scott's (R-Fla.) judgment: "Scott has announced that his team of economic advisers will include former Reagan advisor Art Laffer."

* Teacher training programs clearly still need some work.

* Ted Koppel raised some eyebrows the other day with a lengthy diatribe on modern media, but I found Keith Olbermann's response last night pretty compelling.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

THE LATEST (AND PROBABLY) FINAL ATTEMPT TO EXTEND JOBLESS AID.... Here we go again.

Congress is unlikely to agree to extend jobless benefits for two million unemployed workers by the time the program begins to lapse in two weeks, as lawmakers struggle with a packed lame-duck session and voter antipathy toward government spending.

But cutting off benefits could drag on a fragile economic recovery by reducing consumer spending, economists say, and Democrats are looking for a compromise that could put the program back on track before Christmas.

The program, which provides aid for up to 99 weeks after workers are laid off, has been extended seven times during the economic downturn. Last summer when Congress extended it, the battle was so pitched that benefits lapsed for over a month.

The larger dynamic is practically Dickensian -- Republicans are fighting tooth and nail for $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, but they're very likely to kill extended unemployment benefits for those struggling to find work in a weak economy.

Raising taxes on the rich under these circumstances is considered madness. Leaving jobless Americans with no benefits and no buying power under these circumstances is considered responsible.

Also keep in mind, we're talking about a lot of people who are already struggling.

A separate state-federal program, currently 100% federally funded, offered another 13 to 20 weeks of benefits to workers in high unemployment states. Some 800,000 workers in those programs would be quickly cut off.

Another 1.2 million jobless Americans would stop receiving benefits by the end of December. Some of those workers would exhaust state benefits and be unable to access the federal program. The majority that is already receiving federal emergency extended benefits would gradually lose them.

For Republicans, who've suggested that those struggling to find work in the midst of a jobs crisis are lazy and quite possibly drug addicts, this just isn't cause for concern. On the contrary, they're so opposed to helping the jobless, they'll filibuster any effort to extend benefits -- if Congress were allowed to vote up or down, the benefits would pass.

At this point, you might be thinking, "But wait, won't this be awful for the economy? If more than 1.2 million people lose their benefits, which they invariably spend, won't this mean hardship for those families compounded by less economic activity for everyone else?"

And if that is what you're thinking, you probably aren't going to enjoy the next Congress very much.

I know the right gets hysterical whenever facts like these are brought up, but unemployment benefits are extremely stimulative -- every dollar spent on aid for the jobless results in about two dollars spent in the economy. Tax cuts for millionaires, meanwhile, aren't stimulative at all.

It's almost as if Republicans are deliberately trying to undermine the economy. That couldn't be, could it?

Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

KYL INTENT ON DESTROYING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.... This isn't just political madness; this is petty partisanship that literally puts American national security interests at risk.

A key Republican senator cast doubt Tuesday on the Obama administration's chances of passing the nuclear treaty with Russia during the lame duck session of Congress.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, who is taking the lead for Republicans on negotiating with the administration on the treaty passage, said in a statement he told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, that the treaty should not be considered before January, when the newly elected Congress is seated.

"When Majority Leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization," the statement from Kyl read. "I appreciate the recent effort by the Administration to address some of the issues that we have raised and I look forward to continuing to work with Senator (John) Kerry, DOD, and DOE officials," referring to the Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

The issues that Kyl describes as "unresolved" have, in fact, been resolved -- leading administration officials have met with Kyl privately, and mapped out in detail how they're prepared to do exactly what he wants them to do. Even Jon Kyl, with his limited intellect, should be able to understand when someone says "yes" to his demands.

Under the circumstances, it appears that Kyl is opposing the treaty simply because he can. By all indications, Kyl simply cares more about defeating a key priority for President Obama than advancing the nation's interests. I wish that weren't true, but I'm hard pressed to come to any other conclusion.

I wouldn't say the treaty is dead just yet, but Kyl's mindless, genuinely stupid obstinacy has certainly put the arms treaty on death's door. He's suggested the Senate can try again next year, but no serious person believes it can be ratified after the Democratic majority shrinks -- it's pretty much now or never.

And if it fails, the consequences will be severe. U.S.-Russian relations will deteriorate dramatically; inspection of Russian long-range nuclear bases will be suspended indefinitely; and American credibility on the global stage will take a painful hit -- all because one right-wing Arizonan hates the president a little too much.

We are, by the way, talking about a treaty endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

French Ambassador Pierre Vimont recently said that after he and other diplomats reported back to Europe about the possibility of congressional opposition to the treaty, "People ask us, 'Have you been drinking?'"

The world simply doesn't understand how hysterically ridiculous the Republican Party of the 21st century has become. Why would American lawmakers reject a treaty that benefits America? The notion that a legislature would hate their president more than they love their country just doesn't seem plausible.

The administration reached out to Kyl in good faith, and gave him what he wanted. Kyl's response isn't just a betrayal of the White House; it's a betrayal of all of our interests. It's as shameful a moment for Kyl as at any point in his career -- and he doesn't even realize it.

Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

BACHMANN EXPLAINS BUDGETING AS ONLY SHE CAN.... Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) makes no secret of her hatred for earmarks. The head of Congress' bizarre "Tea Party Caucus," Bachmann's far-right crusade has earmark elimination as a top priority.

Except, of course, for those earmarks she likes.

[W]hen it comes to her own district, she's in favor of a little earmark "redefinition." Because what is an earmark, after all?

"Advocating for transportation projects for one's district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

"I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann continued. "There's a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."

I see. An earmark is bad if Bachmann thinks it sounds like an unworthy idea, and an earmark is good if Bachmann thinks it sounds like an idea with merit. Got it.

Also yesterday, Bachmann talked to CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the budget, looking for "specific cuts" she would be willing to consider. Like most Republicans, Bachmann endorsed across-the-board cuts, returning to 2008 levels of discretionary spending (which, again, is a very bad idea).

A few seconds later, she added:

"We can do across the board cuts, but I don't think that's prudent because there are legitimate projects that have to be done, bridges have to be built, water treatment systems have to be built. So I think, we don't wanna cut off our nose to spite our face. We have to be smart about this."

So, what have we learned from the leading right-wing Republican? Earmarks are bad, unless they're going to Bachmann's district, and slashing spending is good, except for the "legitimate projects that have to be done."

Dear Tea Partiers, I think your leader is having a tough time transitioning to life in the majority.

Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

WHERE ARE THE JOBS (PLANS)?.... A CBS News poll released last week asked Americans what they'd like to see Congress focus on next year. The results weren't close -- a 56% majority cited "economy/jobs" as the top issue. Health care was a distant second at 14%, while tackling the deficit/debt was a very distant third at 4%.

Today, a new Gallup poll shows similar public attitudes. (via DemFromCT)

These results, from a Gallup poll conducted Nov. 4-7, 2010, mark the first time since April that mentions of jobs/unemployment have outpaced mentions of the economy in general when Americans are asked to name the top problem facing the nation. The employment situation and economic conditions have been the two most frequently mentioned problems in Gallup's monthly updates all year, generally followed by healthcare and dissatisfaction with government. Americans' concern about natural disasters flared up in the summer months as the BP oil spill dominated the news, but quickly faded.

The question was, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Jobs was the top issue, mentioned by 33%, followed by "the economy in general," at 31%. In other words, using the CBS poll's phrasing, a combined 64% of the country cited "economy/jobs" as the top issue -- that's nearly two thirds of the population.

The deficit made the list of problems, coming in fifth in Gallup's poll at 9%. To put that in perspective a bit, for every person who considers the deficit the country's most important problem, seven people mentioned the economy/jobs.

And it's against this backdrop that the incoming House Republican majority intends to get to work on their agenda -- and not focus on job creation at all. On the contrary, the GOP agenda, such as it is, focuses on issues that aren't considered especially important by the American mainstream -- gutting the health care system, protecting tax cuts for the wealthy, taking money out of the economy in the form of spending cuts, and reducing the deficit. (Yes, some of those are contradictory goals, since gutting health care and cutting taxes would make the deficit much worse.)

It's like living in some bizarro world in which politicians win elections, and proceed to ignore the overwhelming crisis the public is desperate to see addressed.

Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

THUNE EYES '08 SPENDING LEVELS.... John Thune's (R-S.D.) six years in the Senate haven't been especially interesting. He isn't known for working on any major policy initiatives; he hasn't distinguished himself as an expert in an area; and his most notable accomplishment appears to be Thune's ability to impress people with his handsomeness.

Say hello to the Republicans' John Edwards.

Of course, John Thune has taken conservative adoration to heart, and is now apparently eyeing a possible presidential campaign in 2012. It's the kind of thing that leads to silly gestures like these.

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Thune (S.D.) plans to offer a resolution to cut discretionary spending to 2008 levels during the Senate GOP's closed-door meeting Tuesday.

The nonbinding resolution is part of a broad effort by GOP leaders to line up a series of votes for the Conference meeting to demonstrate that they are heeding the tea party movement's calls to restrict spending and reduce the federal debt.

"My resolution highlights the tremendous growth in non-security discretionary spending over the past two years and calls for returning to FY 2008 non-security discretionary spending levels," Thune said in a letter circulated to colleagues last week.

Now, Thune's resolution may very well be approved by his Republican colleagues, but it won't actually mean anything. If endorsed, we'll know what the Senate GOP caucus wants, but then again, we already knew this. It's not like the resolution is actual legislation.

As for the substance of this, the notion of cutting "discretionary spending to 2008 levels" may seem largely inoffensive. After all, the argument goes, 2008 wasn't that long ago. Much of the country would probably hear this and assume the cuts would be pretty manageable.

But like most debates, Republicans are counting on the public not looking too closely at the details. The NYT recently noted, "Independent analysts say that would require eliminating about $105 billion -- or more than 20 percent of spending by departments like Education, Transportation, Interior, Commerce and Energy -- a level of reductions that history suggests would be extremely hard to execute."

Bloomberg News added that such a budget plan would necessarily "slash spending for education, cancer research and aid to local police and firefighters."

We'd be talking about one-year cuts that would be nearly quadruple the largest discretionary cuts of the last generation.

If Thune thinks this would prove popular, and might even help make him president, he's been sipping too much tea.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

WELL-DESERVED HUMILIATION FOR JOHN MCCAIN.... It's hard to say which humiliating John McCain clip from last night was more entertaining, so let's go ahead and post them both, showing them in the order in which they were aired.

The first was on "The Rachel Maddow Show," who took the Republican senator apart for having contradicted himself so often, there isn't a single issue on which he's been coherent throughout his career. Most notably, McCain, now a leading anti-gay crusader, vowed to support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" just as soon as the military said it's time to end the policy. Now that the military says it's time to end the policy, the hateful hack from Arizona has no use for his previous commitments.

The other clip came two hours later, when Jon Stewart took McCain to task for the same reason, in some cases, even using the same footage from Rachel's show. Note, however, that "The Daily Show" featured a must-see pseudo-commercial called "It Gets Worse," which is devastating and true.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
It Gets Worse PSA
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorRally to Restore Sanity

Also note this gem: "It's the maverick way -- spend a year studying whether soldiers deserve full civil rights, and a half an hour deciding who will be your presidential running mate."

That happens to be true -- before McCain asked a half-term governor to be one heartbeat from the presidency, he'd met her once and talked to her on the phone once. But DADT repeal should wait several more years while McCain studies a survey he already knows the results of.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* As the vote counting continues in Alaska's U.S. Senate race, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) has pulled ahead of Joe Miller (R) for the first time in the overall vote tally. It's a lead she seems unlikely to relinquish.

* Sen. George LeMieux (R) of Florida, appointed to the post when Mel Martinez (R) retired unexpectedly, seems intent on running for a full term in 2012. But LeMieux will have an uphill challenge when he runs -- he hasn't made much of an impression on Floridians, who don't know who he is.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) will probably seek re-election in 2012. But it's not at all clear how he'll run, whether he'll seek a major party nomination, or whether he'll have the support necessary to win. In 2006, he persevered thanks to token GOP opposition -- a luxury he won't enjoy next time. Connecticut GOP Chairman Chris Healy told Roll Call, "The Republican candidate this time will be supported and stronger. And any Republican who gets over 25 percent of the vote, there's no way Lieberman can win as an Independent."

* Not surprisingly, Sen. Richard Lugar (R) will run for re-election in 2012 in Indiana. The 78-year-old incumbent is favored to win another term, but he may yet face a right-wing primary challenger.

* Steve Daines (R), an unsuccessful candidate for lieutenant governor in 2008, announced that he'll take on to Sen. Jon Tester (D) in Montana in 2012. The key GOP candidate to keep an eye on in Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R), who would likely be a more credible opponent for the Democratic incumbent.

* Former Houston Mayor Bill White (D) ran a respectable gubernatorial campaign in Texas this year, but Dems shouldn't expect to recruit him for other upcoming races -- White said yesterday he's not running for the Senate in 2012, for example.

* The Family Research Council, a religious right powerhouse, ran attack ads against Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R) in New Orleans last month, criticizing him for not being right-wing enough. Cao lost, and now he's blaming the FRC.

* And speaking of Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) insists he's really not running for president in 2012. No one's sure whether to believe him.

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

Bookmark and Share

MORE PASSION FOR A SHUTDOWN THAN FOR JOB CREATION.... Yesterday, Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said shutting down the government would be "a mistake," adding, "Nobody really wants that."

"Nobody" is clearly an overstatement. ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who happens to be stark raving mad, and who seemed quite animated about the idea.

"Listen, if it takes a shutdown of government to stop the runaway spending, we owe that to our children and our grandchildren. I don't have any grandchildren yet, but if we don't stop the runaway spending -- even if it means showing how serious we are -- okay, government is going to have to shut down until you runaway-spending people get it under control. And if you can't get it under control, then we just stop government until you realize, you know, yes we can."

Now, obviously Gohmert isn't especially bright, and the poor schmo doesn't really know what he wants to cut or why. What's more, the shutdown he and his ilk are so excited about would be dreadful for the country, a fact that the right-wing Texan also doesn't seem capable of understanding.

But watching Gohmert's passion on the subject got me thinking. Asked about cutting spending (on something, at some point) got the congressman pretty excited. Maybe not "terror baby" excited, but clearly he felt strongly about this, and has a real zeal for slashing the budget. It's a fairly common sentiment among congressional Republicans.

Just once, though, I'd love to see a Republican official talk like this about creating jobs. With an unemployment rate near 10%, it's tempting to think an ascendant GOP would talk about nothing else right now (you know, "where are the jobs?" and all that).

But, no. Republicans bring real enthusiasm for cutting spending, gutting health care, and cutting taxes for the wealthy, but have practically nothing to say about the single highest priority of the American mainstream. Ask about shutting down the government, and you'll hear passion. Ask about creating jobs, and you'll hear crickets.

Congratulations, voters, this is what you asked for two weeks ago.

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

PUTTING NOMINATIONS HIGH ON THE SENATE'S TO-DO LIST.... The last two years have been pretty busy in the Senate, with a variety of landmark accomplishments -- each considered at a glacier's pace -- keeping the chamber's calendar filled practically from the outset.

Next year, the Senate, still under Democratic control, is likely to have a lot more free time. The legislative schedule will very likely crawl to a stop, thanks to one of the most far-right House chambers in American history, which will either fail to pass good bills, or approve bad bills the upper chamber will ignore. The Senate, likewise, probably won't bother tackling major initiatives, knowing they'd die in the House.

So, what are senators to do for the next two years? Brian Beutler reports on a wise course of action.

[W]hile the House passes legislation the Senate has no interest in considering, Majority Leader Harry Reid will have much more time, if he chooses, to devote to confirming a large backlog of Obama's judicial and executive branch nominees -- particularly numerous non-controversial picks, who will have to be renominated next year.

That's certainly what advocates would like to see.

"Reid should concentrate Floor time on must pass bills, message and other votes that highlight differences and important matters that are or should be non-controversial, including confirming lifetime federal judges," Glenn Sugameli, an advocate for swift judicial confirmations, tells TPM. "All of Obama's nominees to circuit and district courts have had the support of their home-state Republican and Democratic senators and the vast majority have been non-controversial nominees who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee without objection and approved unanimously when they finally receive usually long-delayed Floor votes."

To be sure, Senate Republicans will do what they've been doing -- slowing everything down, blocking as many nominees as they can. But don't forget, the Senate will have nothing else to do for the better part of two years. Over the last two years, Reid and the Democratic leadership had a lengthy to-do list, and couldn't eat up the calendar on nominees. GOP obstructionism meant it took three days for the Senate to consider one nominee, during which time the chamber could do nothing else, so more often than not, Reid just didn't bother.

But that won't be much of a hindrance in 2011 and 2012, when the entire lawmaking process goes from difficult to impossible. Why not use that time to let the Obama administration actually have the staff it needs and start dealing with the vacancy crisis on the federal courts?

The latter, in particular, is one of the overlooked scandals of the last two years. Attorney General Eric Holder recently explained that "our judicial system desperately needs the Senate to act.... The federal judicial system that has been a rightful source of pride for the United States -- the system on which we all depend for a prompt and fair hearing of our cases when we need to call on the law -- is stressed to the breaking point."

Republicans, engaging in tactics that no one has ever seen before, have brought the entire process to a generational standstill. It's untenable and arguably dangerous. It is no exaggeration to say the status quo is the worst it's ever been -- the Alliance For Justice recently reported that President Obama "has seen a smaller percentage of his nominees confirmed at this point in his presidency than any president in American history."

If I'm Harry Reid, I'm getting ready to make this one of my top priorities in the next Congress.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

JOHN YOO'S VIEW OF VOTERS.... The midterm elections were pretty obviously painful for Democrats, but there were still some groups of voters who stuck with the outgoing governing majority. Voters with post-graduate degrees, for example, preferred Democrats by a healthy margin, as did those at the other end of the educational spectrum -- those without a high-school diploma.

John Yoo -- best known for his pro-torture memos, arguing that the rule of law should only be respected on a case by case basis, and the literal belief that the "war on terror" trumps the Bill of Rights -- finds these election results noteworthy.

I've been trying to figure out what this means (aside from the amazing educational achievements of the electorate -- 97 percent had a high-school degree or more). Does it mean that the over-educated have no more common sense than those with no education? Does it mean that Obama only really appeals to the extremes of the educational distributional curve, because neither end is really responsible for making ends meet and balancing budgets?

That's an awful lot of nonsense packed into 72 words, so let's unpack it a bit.

To John Yoo, having a post-grad degree is evidence of being "over-educated." Yoo -- who happens to have a post-grad degree -- really ought to know better.

To John Yoo, voting for Democratic candidates is apparently evidence of lacking "common sense." Maybe my post-graduate degree has clouded my judgment, but there's ample evidence to suggest that's backwards.

To John Yoo, those with post-grad degrees aren't "really responsible" for contributing financially to society, the implication being that we're all stuck in academia. Yoo really ought to get out more -- hospitals, law offices, accounting and consulting firms, corporate boardrooms, and small businesses are all filled with people who've done post-graduate work.

And to John Yoo, those who don't have high-school diplomas aren't responsible for "making ends meet." I'd note that the assumption that everyone without a high-school diploma is in poverty is mistaken, but more importantly, for those folks who do fit the stereotype, they're busting their ass to "make ends meet." They might be a little better off if they weren't screwed by the economic policies of Yoo's Republican Party, which is probably why they prefer to vote Democratic.

No wonder this clown was such a powerful Bush administration lawyer -- he has no idea what he's talking about.

Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

RAND PAUL CALLS PROSPECT OF SHUTDOWN 'A MISTAKE'.... Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) chatted with a far-right news website yesterday, and surprisingly enough, rejected the notion of using a government shutdown to force the White House to give Republicans what they want.

[S]ome GOP members of Congress, as well as some of the activist conservatives elected on Nov. 2, continue to discuss a shutdown as a viable option. But Sen.-elect Paul is not among them.

In an exclusive interview Monday on Capitol Hill, the Kentucky ophthalmologist told Newsmax: "I think shutting down the government is a mistake. Nobody really wants that. That's sort of government by chaos."

To say, of course, that "nobody really wants that" isn't quite right -- plenty of current and incoming Republican lawmakers seem to be relishing the prospect of a shutdown. Indeed, none other than Rand Paul recently said he'll refuse to vote for an extension of the federal debt limit, which would both shut down the government and send the United States into default.

Still, it's a good thing when a shutdown is characterized as unreasonable and extreme -- especially by unreasonable extremists -- because it may help create an incentive for Republicans to avoid it.

Paul will not, however, necessarily be a voice of reason when it comes to budgetary issues. In the same interview, he told the far-right website that he'll push to eliminate a $1.2 trillion budget deficit in a year or two, which no sane person should consider possible.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE REPUBLICAN WANTS HIS GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE NOW.... It perfectly reasonable for Andy Harris, like all Americans, to want health care coverage. He's a husband and father of five, and I'm sure he worries about his family losing their health insurance, just like everyone else.

The difference, in this case, is that Andy Harris is a newly-elected far-right congressman from Maryland. Yesterday, at an orientation session, he and his colleagues were told that their health coverage would take effect on Feb. 1, and Harris, an anesthesiologist who railed against the Affordable Care Act to get elected, suggested that's not soon enough.

He wants his government-subsidized health care -- and he wants it now.

"He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care," said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. [...]

"Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap," added the aide, who was struck by the similarity to Harris's request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine.

Harris, a Maryland state senator who works at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and several hospitals on the Eastern Shore, also told the audience, "This is the only employer I've ever worked for where you don't get coverage the first day you are employed," his spokeswoman Anna Nix told POLITICO.

Harris spent months condemning the idea of Americans being entitled to taxpayer-subsidized health care coverage. Now that the election's over, Harris suddenly feels entitled to taxpayer-subsidized health care coverage -- and wants it immediately. (For the record, Harris and his family will probably rely on COBRA to stay insured until his coverage kicks in. COBRA, of course, is another government program that the right opposed.)

That Harris apparently sought a public option for him and his family just makes the whole story that much more hilarious.

Just to clarify, I don't actually blame the far-right congressman-elect. He wants coverage for him and his family, and doesn't want to have to worry about a 28-day gap in which he, his wife, and his kids would have no protections if they get sick.

I do, however, blame the far-right congressman-elect for failing to realize that millions of American families want the same peace of mind he's seeking.

Harris wants to know "what he would do without 28 days of health care"? I don't know, Andy, what have tens of millions of Americans, including millions of children, done without access to quality health care for years? Why are you entitled to government-subsidized health care, but they're not? What will those families do after you repeal the Affordable Care Act? Wait for tort reform to magically cover everyone?

What an embarrassment.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (74)

Bookmark and Share

PUSHING DADT REPEAL UPHILL.... The Pentagon this year surveyed hundreds of thousands of active-duty and reserve troops, as well as 150,000 family members, getting their input on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We already have a pretty good sense of the results: a majority of respondents, like a majority of civilians, are fine with ending the existing policy.

Ideally, this will give repeal proponents the boost they need to get Senate approval for a measure pending in the chamber. The report on the survey, however, isn't due until Dec. 1. Yesterday, two pro-repeal senators asked for an expedited release.

Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) tried to boost support for repealing the military's ban on openly gay service members by requesting Monday that the Pentagon release a report reviewing the policy early.

"Some of our colleagues in the Senate share our view about the importance of passing a defense bill, but they are awaiting the release of the working group's report before agreeing to begin debate on the bill," the two wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, referring to the defense authorization bill, which includes a repeal provision. "We are hopeful that release of the report and the opportunity for our colleagues to review its findings and recommendations will help inform their understanding and alleviate some concerns they may have regarding the military's capacity to implement repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in a manner that is consistent with our armed forces' standards of readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention." [...]

"Given the limited amount of time remaining in the 111th Congress, the soonest possible release of the working group's report could therefore be instrumental in allowing the defense bill to move forward," the two wrote.

If I had to guess, I'd say the Pentagon respectfully declines the request -- the Defense Department generally works on its own schedule, not Congress' -- but what I found interesting about the appeal was who sent it. Lieberman has always been strong on this issue, but Collins, who claims to support repeal, helped her Republican colleagues kill the measure a couple of months ago.

Her co-signed letter yesterday, then, suggests she's still trying to get to "yes." Depending on when the bill can be brought to the floor, Democrats may only need one vote, and if Collins wants to be the hero here, it's within her power to do just that.

Meanwhile, there's still talk of appeasing anti-gay Republicans, led by John McCain (R-Ariz.), and stripping the DADT provision from the larger defense spending bill. Yesterday, however, some leading Dems signaled that if the DADT language is removed, there would have to be a separate, stand-alone vote in the Senate on repeal -- a tricky move given the very limited lame-duck schedule, and a vote that would have to be duplicated in the House.

The surest way to success remains the option on the table -- leaving the spending bill intact, with the repeal provision, and finding a Republican or two willing to let the Senate vote on funding the troops.

On a related note, Aaron Belkin, the director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, noted yesterday, "Twenty two studies, including military studies, have found that gays don't hurt the military. The forthcoming DOD study is #23."

McCain and other anti-gay lawmakers insist that they'll also need to see #24. And when that doesn't tell them what they want to hear, it'll be time for study #25. It's farcical.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 15, 2010

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

* Middle East peace: "The pledge by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to push for a new, one-time-only freeze of 90 days on settlement construction in the West Bank represents a bet by the Israelis and the Americans that enough can be accomplished so that the Palestinians will not abandon peace talks even after the freeze ends."

* Aung San Suu Kyi is finally free in Burma.

* Afghan President Hamid Karzai is increasingly critical of U.S. military operations in his country. Gen. David Petraeus isn't happy about it.

* On a related, here's the new phased four-year plan: "The Obama administration has developed a plan to begin transferring security duties in select areas of Afghanistan to that country's forces over the next 18 to 24 months, with an eye toward ending the American combat mission there by 2014, officials said Sunday."

* Some encouraging economic news: "Retail sales, helped by strong demand for autos, increased in October by the largest amount in seven months. The Commerce Department reported Monday that retail sales rose 1.2 percent last month. That was nearly double the gain that had been expected and the largest increase since March."

* Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics trial gets underway: "In an ominous sign for Representative Charles B. Rangel, the House ethics committee on Monday said the facts presented by a prosecutor accusing Mr. Rangel of violating Congressional rules were not in dispute and that the congressman himself had not refuted the charges." (Note: Rangel abruptly left his own proceedings this morning, complaining that he had no lawyer.)

* Thirteen protestors organized by the GetEqual campaign handcuffed themselves to the White House's north gate today to protest "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I'm not an expert in political protests, but given that the White House already agrees with the demonstrators, wouldn't it be smarter to take the case to the U.S. Senate, where, you know, the outcome will be decided? If Barack Obama is on your side, and John McCain isn't, why protest at the White House?

* Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) were sworn in this afternoon. Sen.-elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is still waiting for the state to certify his results, and should join the Senate before the end of the month.

* I'm glad President Obama put Sarah Bloom Raskin on the Fed's Board of Governors: "Sarah Bloom Raskin on Friday used her first public speech as a governor of the Federal Reserve Board to call for major changes to mortgage servicing, saying it's time for 'serious and sustained reform.'"

* Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) hates the Affordable Care Act, except when it can fund medical facilities in his state.

* Right-wing Virginia Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, has stepped down as head of her far-right organization, Liberty Central.

* Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is the latest conservative to announce his distaste for the 17th Amendment.

* Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich doesn't just want to defeat the left, he wants to "replace the left."

* Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), soon to be the House Republican Conference chairman, doesn't appear to know what "cut" means.

* For-profit colleges are still making money, but they're not enrolling as many students.

* I guess this should be funny, but I'm not altogether pleased to see such widespread recognition for "refudiate."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share

THE POST-TRUTH ERA.... It's never been easier for Americans to keep up on current events and public affairs, but the persistent propensity for large swaths of the electorate to believe demonstrable falsehoods remains astounding.

I'm well aware of the structural problems that generated Republican gains in the midterms -- high unemployment means huge losses for the incumbent majority. But I'm also inclined to believe that our stunted discourse contributes to an environment in which facts are swiftly rejected.

Much, if not most, of the country believes President Obama raised taxes. And that he signed TARP into law. And that TARP money isn't being repaid. And that the economy contracted in 2010. And that the stimulus was wasteful and counter-productive. And that this current Congress did less than most. And that the Affordable Care Act constitutes "socialized medicine" and a "government takeover." And let's not even get started on the president's birthplace.

In a historical sense, it's not at all unusual for propagandists and provocateurs to spread lies, but we live in an era in which it's almost effortless for ignorance to spread like a cancer -- leading more people to believe more nonsense, faster and easier.

Andrew Sullivan had an item on this last week that bears repeating.

It seems to me that the last year or so in America's political culture has represented the triumph of untruth. And the untruth was propagated by a deliberate, simple and systemic campaign to kill Obama's presidency in its crib. Emergency measures in a near-unprecedented economic collapse - the bank bailout, the auto-bailout, the stimulus - were described by the right as ideological moves of choice, when they were, in fact, pragmatic moves of necessity. The increasingly effective isolation of Iran's regime - and destruction of its legitimacy from within - was portrayed as a function of Obama's weakness, rather than his strength. The health insurance reform -- almost identical to Romney's, to the right of the Clintons in 1993, costed to reduce the deficit, without a public option, and with millions more customers for the insurance and drug companies -- was turned into a socialist government take-over.

Every one of these moves could be criticized in many ways. What cannot be done honestly, in my view, is to create a narrative from all of them to describe Obama as an anti-American hyper-leftist, spending the US into oblivion. But since this seems to be the only shred of thinking left on the right (exacerbated by the justified flight of the educated classes from a party that is now openly contemptuous of learning), it became a familiar refrain -- pummeled into our heads day and night by talk radio and Fox. If you think I'm exaggerating, try the following thought experiment.

If a black Republican president had come in, helped turn around the banking and auto industries (at a small profit!), insured millions through the private sector while cutting Medicare, overseen a sharp decline in illegal immigration, ramped up the war in Afghanistan, reinstituted pay-as-you go in the Congress, set up a debt commission to offer hard choices for future debt reduction, and seen private sector job growth outstrip the public sector's in a slow but dogged recovery, somehow I don't think that Republican would be regarded as a socialist.

This is the era of the Big Lie, in other words, and it translates into a lot of little lies -- "death panels," "out-of-control" spending, "apologies for America" etc. -- designed to concoct a false narrative so simple and so familiar it actually succeeded in getting into people's minds in the midst of a brutal recession.

As we talked about a couple of weeks ago, this dynamic encourages more of what we've seen of late -- when dishonesty is rewarded, we'll hear more lies, not fewer.

The post-truth era can be disheartening.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

MCCONNELL CAVES ON EARMARKS.... Almost immediately after the midterms, a contingent of Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), set out to prohibit GOP members from using earmarks in the next Congress. Leading the other side was none other than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Publicly, McConnell was insisting (accurately, by the way) that eliminating earmarks would be a meaningless gesture that wouldn't actually save any money. He called the very debate "exasperating." Privately, McConnell was "maneuvering behind the scenes" to defeat DeMint's gambit.

This afternoon, McConnell, apparently unable to persuade the caucus he ostensibly leads, threw in the towel.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a longtime defender of the Congressional authority over federal spending, said on Monday that he would support a proposed ban on earmarks, the lawmaker-directed spending items, in the next Congress.

Mr. McConnell, in his opening speech at the start of the lame-duck session, announced that he was changing his position on earmarks to demonstrate to voters and to his colleagues that he was now firmly committed to reducing government spending.

"I have thought about these things long and hard over the past few weeks," Mr. McConnell said. "I've talked with my members. I've listened to them. Above all, I have listened to my constituents. And what I've concluded is that on the issue of Congressional earmarks, as the leader of my party in the Senate, I have to lead first by example."

Or to translate this to English, "I've discovered that I don't have the votes to do what I want."

And with that Mitch McConnell, who's used earmarks for years and doesn't want to have to give them up, declared, "Today, I am announcing that I will join the Republican leadership in the House in support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th Congress." He acknowledged that the move is "symbolic" and largely counter-productive, but he's doing it anyway to impress voters.

I guess this means, by Sen. James Inhofe's (R-Okla.) standards, McConnell has been "brainwashed" by "liberals," too.

For what it's worth, I should note for context that the moratorium, in addition to leaving spending largely unaffected, also won't stop the Democratic majority from continuing the practice, forcing GOP senators into a position in which they'll have to vote against popular appropriations bills that happen to include earmarks.

Also note, the moratorium won't have the force of law and couldn't be formally enforced -- so Republicans could just go ahead and request earmarks anyway.

It's not exactly heartening that the first major Republican initiative after the elections is largely meaningless, and intended to do little more than improve their standing in the polls.

Steve Benen 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

IT'S ALL ABOUT PRIORITIES.... Compare and contrast.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader, two weeks ago:

"[O]ur top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office."

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leader, two hours ago:

"Despite the changes, our charge remains the same. Our number-one priority is still getting people back to work. And the most important change we can make is in working more productively as a unified body to help our economy regain its strength."

One of these two leaders has the right priorities. Can you tell which one?

Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

MAKING TOUGH CALLS IS (AND MUST BE) ITS OWN REWARD.... On "Meet the Press" yesterday, David Axelrod was understandably reluctant to go into details about upcoming budget negotiations with congressional Republicans. Host David Gregory asked how the White House can expect Democrats and Republicans "to make painful choices" if he's not prepared to talk about budget specifics on the air.

The question didn't quite work -- it was a bit of a non sequitur -- but the notion that the White House is somehow avoiding "painful choices" is clearly untrue. One only need consider the politically treacherous decisions this administration has tackled for two years.

Jon Chait had a sharp item on this the other day.

One of the defining beliefs of sensible-center Washington establishment types is that elected officials need to make Tough Decisions, including unpopular decisions, rather than just try to skate through to the next election. However, a second set of beliefs held by this group is that, if you do lose an election, this proves that all your ideas were not just politically unwise but substantively wrong.

What a good point. It's taken as a given that honorable leaders aren't supposed to consider polls or elections when facing serious challenges -- they're supposed to do what's right, and make the "tough call" and "hard choice," regardless of the political fallout. Those who don't are necessarily deemed weak and irresponsible.

But Jon's right that there's no real political reward for following the right course. Pundits demand that tough leaders make unpopular decisions on the merits, but then those same pundits blast the leaders when the unpopular decisions prove to be ... unpopular. Indeed, those decisions are necessarily deemed to be wrong by virtue of the fact that the electorate disapproved.

Here President Obama was doing all kinds of unpopular things -- bailing out banks, bailing out the auto industry, cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare -- because he felt those courses of action were responsible. And then he loses seats, in part because of those hard decisions, and now he's supposed to admit that his policies were bad?

I can't remember where I read it -- someone help me out in comments [Update: there it is. Thanks, everyone] -- but I saw a report recently about President Obama and his team taking a certain amount of pride in making decisions they knew would be unpopular. The White House officials believed it was their job to solve problems and make tough decisions, and that "painful choices" are just part of the job. If you're too cowardly to do things that are unpopular, you probably shouldn't be there anyway.

But it's striking to me how little credit Obama gets for this, most notably from the same media figures who judge a leader based on his/her willingness to do unpopular things for the good of the country.

Maybe the Political Pundit Perpetual Panic Conflictinator doesn't really know what it wants?

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

CANTOR'S UNPERSUASIVE WALK-BACK.... Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the incoming House Majority Leader, caused an unexpected stir the other day, boasting about a private meeting he had with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Cantor's office, the Republican assured Netanyahu that the new House GOP majority will "serve as a check" on the Obama administration.

It was rather astounding on multiple levels. The private meeting was itself "unusual, if not unheard of." But it was even more striking that Cantor would vow directly to a foreign leader to undermine the efforts of a sitting administration, apparently suggesting that he would side with the other government over the American government on a matter of U.S. foreign policy.

Perhaps most importantly, it may have even been illegal. A few years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad. At the time, none other than Eric Cantor personally accused Pelosi of possibly violating the Logan Act, "which makes it a felony for any American 'without authority of the United States' to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government's behavior on any disputes with the United States." By Cantor's own standard, he seemed to commit a felony last week.

With this in mind, today's "clarification" was predictable.

Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) office on Monday issued a follow-up comment to one made last week, saying that the congressman would serve as a roadblock to the Obama administration approach but not when it comes to issues of Middle East diplomacy.

A spokesman for the likely soon-to-be House Majority Leader said that there was no clarification being offered on a statement that caused a bit of controversy last week. On Monday, simply put, the office was reaffirming that while Cantor told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday that he planned on serving as "a check on the administration," he would not be playing that function "in relation to U.S./Israel relations."

That's reassuring, I suppose. It's clearly a problem if Cantor tried to undermine U.S. foreign policy directly with another country's head of state, but as of today, the current Minority Whip's office is saying that's not what happened.

I am curious, though, exactly what Cantor was saying when he vowed to the prime minister that Republicans would serve as "a check on the administration." Did Cantor think Netanyahu was interested in the American health care system? Was Cantor anxious to talk about cutting off unemployment aid?

In other words, for Cantor's "clarification" to be credible, we'd have to believe the Republican leader had a private meeting with a foreign leader, vowed to help "check" the administration, but was talking about subjects entirely unrelated to that foreign leader's country.

If you find that hard to believe, we're on the same page.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

NOONAN FEARS REPORTS ON 'NUTS AND YAHOOS'.... In her latest Wall Street Journal column, Peggy Noonan complains that we're likely to see major news outlets characterize "a lot of these new Congress critters [as] a little radical, a little nutty." (via Steve M.)

The media is looking for drama. They are looking for a colorful story. They want to do reporting that isn't bland, that has a certain edge.... The mainstream media this January will be looking for the nuts. [...]

The point is when they want to paint you as nuts and yahoos, don't help them paint you as nuts and yahoos. It's good to keep in mind the advice of the 19th century actress Mrs. Patrick Campbell, who once said, speaking in a different context, that she didn't really care what people did as long as they didn't do it in the street and frighten the horses.

That would be the advice for incoming Republicans: Stand tall, speak clear, and don't frighten the horses.

To bolster the point, Noonan pointed to coverage of the post-1994 elections, when the media "focused their cameras on people who could be portrayed as nutty, and found them." Apparently, rascally news organizations told the public about members of Congress, their notorious remarks, and their controversial actions.

How outrageous. Journalists reporting on ridiculous members of Congress and their antics? The nerve of these political reporters.

Of course the real problem here is not the one Peggy Noonan identifies. The issue is not news outlets taking note of radicals and extremists in Congress; the issue is the presence of radicals and extremists in Congress. Noonan seems to think there's something untoward about shining a light on "nuts and yahoos" in positions of great power in the federal government. I'd argue that shining a light on them is one of the reasons the media is supposed to exist.

The amusing part of all of this is what Noonan seems to accept, but is unwilling to acknowledge: she knows that her party has just elected a whole legion of lawmakers, many of whom are mad as a hatter, and she's worried about the embarrassment that comes with public recognition of their madness.

When Noonan counsels them -- "don't help [reporters] paint you as nuts and yahoos" -- there's a degree of fear here. The column effectively urges far-right extremists who will now help shape federal law not to be themselves, because that would be embarrassing for everyone.

Noonan added that in the wake of the '94 midterms, this "spirited" group of Republican lawmakers didn't have "a conservative media infrastructure to defend them," an issue that has since been resolved. But that's not especially satisfying, either -- as Steve M. put it, "Because they shouldn't have to suffer consequences once we learn that they believe such things, right?"

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

Bookmark and Share

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R) write-in bid in Alaska continues to appear well positioned to win -- 89% of the write-in votes have been in her favor -- but this is the week 40,000 absentee ballots get counted.

* On a related note, while Joe Miller (R) insists he can still win, his lawyers don't seem to think so -- they're packing up and leaving Alaska.

* It was very close, but Rep. Ben Chandler (D) has been declared the winner in Kentucky's 6th congressional district. His GOP challenger conceded over the weekend.

* There are now seven officially unresolved U.S. House races. The Democrat leads in two of them (California's 11th and California's 20th), but trails in the other five (Illinois 8th, Texas 27th, North Carolina 2nd, New York 25th, and New York 1st).

* The Senate Democratic leadership finally thought it had found a good member to lead the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the 2012 election cycle. But late Friday, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet became the latest Dem to say he's not interested, either.

* With Mississippi's Haley Barbour stepping down as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, he'll be replaced by Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

* Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) hasn't ruled out a presidential campaign at some point. "You never say never about anything," he told CNN.

* And Sarah Palin's political action committee is once again in trouble with the Federal Election Commission, filing a quarterly report filled with math errors and related mistakes. It's not the first time: "The commission has sent at least a half-dozen letters to Sarah PAC since its formation in 2009 about errors or omissions in its reports, records show."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

MORE CALLS FOR A CULTURE-WAR TRUCE.... It's been a while, but in the months leading up to the 2006 midterms -- the last time a chamber of Congress had a Republican majority -- GOP policymakers were intent on making the base happy.

In the three months leading up to Election Day '06, Republicans voted on an anti-gay constitutional amendment, a flag-burning constitutional amendment, assorted restrictions on abortion rights, new penalties for "broadcast indecency," and a measure to retain the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Republican lawmakers thought they could gin up the base and salvage the election cycle. It didn't work, and Democrats soon after won majorities in both chambers.

It's interesting, then, to see some Republicans urging the party to just skip hot-button culture-war issues altogether in the next Congress.

A gay conservative group and some Tea Party leaders are campaigning to keep social issues off the Republican agenda.

In a letter to be released Monday, the group GOProud and leaders from groups like the Tea Party Patriots and the New American Patriots, will urge Republicans in the House and Senate to keep their focus on shrinking the government.

"On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement," they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. "This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue."

The letter's signatories range from GOProud's co-founder and Chairman Christopher Barron ... to Tea Party leaders with no particular interest in the gay rights movement.

It's amusing, in a way, to see someone urge the GOP to pursue "the principles of the Tea Party movement," since no one can say with any confidence exactly what they are. Indeed, a significant chunk of the Tea Party activists say they're involved precisely because they're interested in social issues. It underscores the problem with pseudo-movements with no real policy agenda -- their "principles" are whatever the speaker says they are.

Regardless, the letter comes just months after Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) suggested it's time for a "truce" on culture-war issues.

That didn't go over well with much of the traditional Republican Party base, and it stands to reason this new effort will draw fire, too. Indeed, just last week, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was asked about the notion of a "truce on social issues" for awhile. He replied that it's just not possible for someone to be "a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative."

With that in mind, the intra-right fight should make for compelling viewing. GOProud's Barron noted, for example, that Jim DeMint wants to ban gay teachers from public school classrooms. "How is that limited government?" Barron asked.

I don't know, but I'd love to hear the answer.

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

Bookmark and Share

KOPPEL LAMENTS 'THE DEATH OF REAL NEWS'.... Ted Koppel, a long-time giant of broadcast journalism, had a rather lengthy rant yesterday, incorporating complaints about Keith Olbermann into a larger tirade about "the death of real news." Some of his concerns were compelling, but most fell into familiar traps.

Koppel was right, for example, to lament major news organizations closing international bureaus, but he points the finger in the wrong direction. As he sees it, it's the fault of Americans, especially younger news consumers, who have no appetite for international affairs, and who prefer opinion-based programs.

I have a hard time believing that news consumers' attitudes have really changed that significantly in recent decades. For that matter, Koppel said ABC's "bean counters" started applying cost-benefit ratios to overseas bureaus in the "mid-90s," which largely pre-dates the very opinion-style programs he disapproves of.

More important, though, was Koppel's condemnation of the cable news outlets, especially their prime-time lineups.

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly -- individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.

And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be.... It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality.

There are some legitimate concerns about news consumers having the option of surrounding themselves only with news they want to hear, but Koppel is painting with an overly-broad brush.

For one thing, he's confusing ideology and partisanship -- Rachel Maddow is a liberal; Sean Hannity is a Republican. MSNBC's lineup criticizes President Obama and congressional Democrats nearly every day on ideological grounds; Fox News' lineup wouldn't dare chastise their Republican brethren.

For another, Koppel insists MSNBC and Fox News are somehow mirror images of one another. This remains the laziest and most unpersuasive observation in all of American media criticism. Fox News is a Republican propaganda outlet, plain and simple. MSNBC is a straight-news network, with some opinionated program in the early morning (a former Republican congressman gets three hours a day) and in prime time.

As for Koppel's insistence that all of this is "part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts," I can only assume that he hasn't actually watched MSNBC's prime-time lineup, or he'd know this is plainly false.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

WHAT GRAHAM CONSIDERS A 'STUMBLING BLOCK'.... Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told ABC's Christiane Amanpour yesterday that he's "very open-minded" about the New START nuclear arms treaty, but he sees "two impediments."

As Graham explained it, "Modernization. Not only do we need a START Treaty; we need to modernize our nuclear force, the weapons that are left, to make sure they continue to be a deterrent. And we need to make sure that we can employ -- deploy missile defense systems that are apart from START. So you've got two stumbling blocks."

Tanya Somanader explained that Graham's flubbing all the relevant details.

The only problem with Graham's "stumbling blocks" is that they don't actually exist. While "security experts" like Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and former Bush administration Ambassador John Bolton insist that Obama is "risking our security" by supposedly not focusing on modernization of America's nuclear arsenal, the actual rocket scientists of an independent defense advisory panel determined that not only are the weapons completely reliable, but that our current "nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss in effectiveness." To make sure this remains the case, the Obama administration devoted $7 billion to maintain the nuclear-weapons stockpile -- $600 million more than Congress approved last year and 10 percent more than what the Bush administration spent.

As for START's impact on missile defense, Director of the Missile Defense Agency Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly made it clear that the new treaty "has no constraints on current and future components of the Ballistic Missile Defense System," and that it actually "reduces" several limitations on cost-effective testing. Thus, given Graham's criteria for support, treaty proponents should expect his vote.

In other words, Graham would be a "yes" vote if only he knew what he was talking about.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have an op-ed in the Washington Post today, insisting that "our national security depends on" New START ratification. Among other things, the cabinet secretaries emphasized the fact that it's been almost a year since U.S. inspectors lost the ability to keep tabs on Russian nukes. Both Clinton and Gates are anxious to have the treaty ratified so checks can be reinstated -- this is the first time in 15 years we've lost the ability to inspect Russian long-range nuclear bases.

But so long as senators like Graham have imaginary complaints, we'll continue to wait.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

CERTAIN ABOUT UNCERTAINTY, CONT'D.... The most annoying and misleading talking points tend to be the ones that linger the longest.

Yesterday, for example, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) repeated on CNN the same line that we've heard for a year: "The most important thing the economy needs right now is certainty. The reason we have so much money sitting on the sidelines is because of all the churning they see in Washington." It came the same day as USC business professor Ayse Imrohoroglu made a similar case in the LA Times.

We've been through this repeatedly, but Kevin Drum offered another helpful reminder.

The uncertainty meme is just mind boggling. Businesses always have a certain amount of financial and regulatory uncertainty to deal with, and there's simply no evidence that this uncertainty is any greater now than it usually is. (It is, of course, entirely believable that business owners who spend too much time watching Fox or reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page might believe otherwise, but that's a whole different problem -- and one that Imrohoroglu should spend his time debunking, not promoting.) The only significant real uncertainty that American businesses face right now is uncertainty about whether there's enough customer demand to justify hiring more workers and buying more equipment.

In my heart of hearts, I assume that most Republicans know their talking point on this is garbage. They're using it, I suspect, because they can't think of anything else -- they can't blame the economy on tax increases, since taxes have gone down not up, and they can't blame the recession on Bush since they still support his economic policies. They need to figure out a way to blame health care reform, industry regulations, and the rest of the Democratic agenda, so "uncertainty" becomes a convenient catch-all.

But it's still ridiculous. Businesses have been reluctant to hire because they need more customers. It's really not a mystery.

Let's also not forget, though, that Republicans seek to contribute to their imaginary problem by adding more uncertainty, not less. Hell, the GOP can add all kinds of certainty today by announcing it will stop fighting middle-class tax cuts, stop trying to gut the health care system, stop pushing to take more money out of the economy, stop trying to undermine consumer and worker safeguards, stop vowing to repeal financial regulatory reform

After all, as Mark Schmitt explained a couple of months ago, "The mantra of 'uncertainty' is as subtle and smart a political slogan as the Republican wordsmiths have ever cooked up. But rather than being defensive or trying to change the subject, progressives should take it head on: It's the political maneuverings of the Bush administration and the scams of Wall Street that created uncertainty. And it's progressive policies, from the New Deal to the present, that hold the answer."

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

TAX CUT TACTICS.... Last week, senior White House advisor David Axelrod caused quite a bit of trouble when he suggested the administration was prepared to cave and give Republicans the tax cuts they want. Yesterday, on "Meet the Press," he was a little more cautious, but didn't exactly speak from a position of strength -- he would only rule out a "permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," which keeps a temporary extension prominently on the table.

Part of the larger problem is that we're not looking at two competing approaches for everyone to consider. There's one Republican plan -- a permanent extension of Bush-era tax rates, adding trillions to the debt for a tax policy that was a demonstrable failure.

But there isn't a single Democratic alternative -- by some counts, there are six or seven counter-proposals -- which necessarily makes the political debate more difficult. There are some indications, however, that the left is starting to rally behind a single approach. Greg Sargent had this report late on Friday:

One of the most powerful labor organizations in the country is throwing its weight behind a legislative strategy on the Bush tax cuts in which Democrats would hold a vote on just extending the middle class tax cuts permanently, without any vote on the high end ones.

"The election is over -- we believe Congress ought to get down to business and vote on extending the tax cuts for the middle class, and not vote on the tax cuts for the rich," Bill Samuel, the legislative director of the AFL-CIO, told me in an interview this afternoon. "Congress should not extend the tax cuts for the rich -- not even temporarily -- because that would do more harm than good for the economy."

AFL-CIO's declaration represents the first major institutional endorsement of taking this approach in the lame duck session, suggesting the possibility that labor and leading liberals in Washington may begin coalescing behind it. More broadly, the move is also a sign that labor and liberals will demand that Obama and Congressional Dems draw a hard line against Republicans in the tax cut fight.

This is, you'll notice, the original approach adopted by President Obama -- tax cuts for the middle class, a return to Clinton-era rates for the wealthy. Indeed, this was Candidate Obama's idea as presented to voters in 2008, when he won the presidency fairly easily.

It's hard to say, at least at this point, whether the more centrist elements in the Democratic caucus could support this, but either way, there's benefit that comes with having the left stake out a clear, compelling, and popular position on how best to proceed -- there's a rival pole to match the right's.

Here's hoping this helps change the trajectory of the debate, at least a little, because at this point I continue to marvel at how badly Dems are playing the game. The best option seems so painfully obvious to me that I'm amazed Democrats are afraid to try it: bring middle-class tax cuts to the floor and dare Republicans to kill them. If the GOP caves, Dems get the policy they want. If the GOP kills the tax-cut package, Clinton-era rates return for everyone, which is probably the policy Dems should want, and the headlines read, "Republicans kill tax cut compromise; higher rates kick in Jan. 1."

I've never seen a party so afraid of doing the obvious, popular thing that puts their rivals on the defensive. It's a gift-wrapped present that Dems seem afraid to open.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

MCCAIN MOVES THE GOAL POSTS.... A couple of months ago, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) led the charge to kill "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, he specifically relied on a Pentagon survey on the issue. How, McCain said, could Congress possibly act before lawmakers know the results? Don't senators care what active-duty and reserve troops, as well as 150,000 family members, have to say?

Well, we now have a pretty good sense what the survey results show: most of the men and women in uniform are fine with ending DADT. By one account, more that 70% of respondents to the Pentagon survey said the effect of repealing the existing policy would be positive, mixed, or nonexistent.

Noting the attitudes of those in the military, the Washington Post editorial board said today, "The last possible rationale for maintaining the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy appears to have been pulverized."

One would certainly like to think so. McCain, meanwhile, has decided to move the goal posts.

McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that he did not think the Senate should lift the ban during the lame-duck session that begins this week.

"Once we get this study, we need to have hearings. And we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted," McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

This is genuinely pathetic. Note the evolving excuses McCain has used to justify his anti-gay attitudes:

We can't repeal DADT until the Secretary of Defense says it's a good idea. Oh, he does?

Well then we can't repeal DADT until the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff says it's a good idea. Oh, he's on board, too?

Well then we can't repeal DADT until we've surveyed servicemen and women, asking their opinion on the policy. They're fine with repeal, too?

Well then we can't repeal DADT until we've studied the survey results for months.

Whether McCain realizes how foolish he looks or not, this is transparently ridiculous. The senator would be better off dropping the incoherent pretense and simply acknowledge what's plainly true: he doesn't want gay servicemembers, and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE WEEKEND.... It was a surprisingly busy weekend here at Political Animal. Here's a recap of what we covered.

On Sunday, we talked about:

* White House officials have begun crafting a plan on how to proceed in 2011 and 2012. If they expect to have a constructive relationship with congressional Republicans, they're making a mistake.

* Why, oh why, does the Washington Post keep running tiresome op-eds from Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell, "Democrats" who hate Democrats?

* Tea Partiers are pretty worked up about competing "alternative" orientation programs for incoming congressional freshmen.

* Voters in Indiana said they wanted a Senate candidate who can relate to the concerns of regular people and can bring a fresh perspective to the entrenched insiders in Congress. They elected an old, wealthy Washington insider, who left Indiana more than a decade ago, and who's spent several years as a corporate lobbyist.

* I had a new op-ed in the New York Daily News yesterday, exploring areas of overlap between President Obama's agenda and selected Republican ideas.

* On Thursday, Cindy McCain appeared in an ad denouncing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." On Friday, Cindy McCain pulled a 180 and announced that she supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I wonder what her husband said to make her change her mind.

And on Saturday, we talked about:

* Did incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) commit a felony when he met privately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vowing to oppose U.S. policy in the Middle East? By Cantor's own standards, perhaps.

* When the political world assumes that the public really cares about the deficit, the political world is wrong.

* The debate over health care policy offers a case study on the ways in which Republicans make bipartisanship impossible.

* In "This Week in God," we covered a variety of topics, including some unintended consequences of Oklahoma's decision to combat the imaginary sharia threat.

* There's some evidence that some Republican senators just don't like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) very much.

* The administration still hopes it can commit to some new nuclear investments in order to pick up votes for New START.

* House Democrats resolved their leadership dispute by creating a new position for outgoing House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 14, 2010

WHITE HOUSE PONDERS, WHAT NOW?.... Governing hasn't exactly been easy for the Obama administration over the last two years. The White House benefited from a like-minded U.S. House, but Senate obstructionism reached a point unseen in American history. That, combined with pressing, inherited crises -- an economic catastrophe, two wars, a jobs crisis, a massive deficit, a housing crisis, a climate crisis, a dysfunctional health care system, a broken energy framework -- and an angry, impatient electorate, made 2009 and 2010 as challenging for this president as any two-year stretch in modern American history.

And it's about to get considerably more difficult. A Senate that struggled to function with a 59-member majority will now have a 53-47 split. The incoming GOP House majority will make the lower chamber as conservative as it's been in generations. The national and international challenges in desperate need of attention haven't gone away, and the president's public standing has faltered.

What on earth will President Obama and his team do now?

Anne Kornblut reports today that a wide variety of leading White House aides have been meeting this week to "figure out what went so wrong and what to do about it." The officials have "determined that the situation they face is serious and will take significant adjustments to reverse."

The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington.

Even more important, senior administration officials said, Obama will need to oversee tangible improvements in the economy. They cannot just keep arguing, as Democrats did during the recent campaign, that things would have been worse if not for administration policies.

It appears that a detailed plan for the political future is still coming together, but Kornblut's report, which is well worth reading in full, noted that officials are prioritizing "re-energizing" his "core constituencies," which strikes me as a very good idea. It also seems unlikely that they'll make major, "sudden" changes in their approach to governing, especially since they don't perceive the midterm results as being "as bleak a harbinger as some Democrats fear." I'm also glad to see officials are prioritizing "tangible improvements in the economy," since Republicans aren't.

One senior official "said the key is to neither overreact nor underreact to the midterms but to accurately pinpoint the areas that were truly problematic for the president and try to act on them."

The sticking point, at least for me, continues to be over what the White House expects from Republicans, who just happen to be intent on destroying Obama's presidency. The piece noted that White House officials intend to "gauge whether they can forge an alliance with any top Republicans," which strikes me as practically impossible. A senior official said the White House is "hopeful but not naive" about constructive work with the rival party.

If I'm in the West Wing, I'm planning for the worst -- game out the scenario in which Republicans push for a government shutdown, refuse to fund much of anything, make every effort to gut health care and education, and plan accordingly.

Because all available evidence suggests GOP leaders and their nihilistic rank and file have no interest in governing. None. If Plan A is exploring the possibility of working in good faith with Republicans towards actual policymaking, fine. Give it a try. But keeping Plan B handy at or near the top of the pile would probably the responsible, realistic thing to do.

Put it this way: the White House should imagine Republicans being as reckless, irresponsible, ignorant, ill-tempered and child-like as humanly possible -- and then expect that to happen, because it probably will.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)

Bookmark and Share

THE SCHOEN/CADDELL FARCE.... I'm beginning to notice a pattern -- Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell, ostensible "Democratic" pollsters, write silly op-eds bashing their party and the Washington Post runs them, over and over again.

It started in March, when the pair argued Democrats would be far better off with the electorate if they failed to pursue their policy agenda. A month later, Schoen and Caddell were at it again, this time insisting that Democrats do what Tea Partiers tell them to do. President Obama and congressional Democrats should, they argued, work on an agenda focused on "reducing the debt, with an emphasis on tax cuts."

Last month, the not-so-dynamic duo had another WaPo op-ed, blasting the president for being "divisive." Today the Post runs yet another Schoen/Caddell piece -- the fourth piece in eight months -- and this time we learn from the Democrats who hate Democrats that President Obama should respond to the midterms by refusing to seek re-election in two years, because it would bring people together.

The piece is a little too absurd to excerpt -- go ahead and click on the link if you're inclined, but keep a bottle of Maalox handy -- but the argument is ridiculous on its face. I obviously don't know what political conditions will be like in two years; no one does. But the notion that an electoral shellacking necessitates retirement is not only silly, it's at odds with all recent history -- Clinton, Reagan, Truman, and FDR all saw midterm setbacks on par with Obama's. They all won re-election soon after. Indeed, it's an inconvenient point, but Obama's electoral standing is actually slightly better now than at comparable points in the Clinton and Reagan presidencies.

Adam Serwer noted that "asking Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell not to be one-note hacks would be like telling Maury Povitch to stop doing shows involving paternity tests." He added, with dripping sarcasm:

Why wait? Shouldn't he and Joe Biden just resign effective immediately, making John Boehner president? In fact, this whole two-party system thing is absurd and just leads to partisan acrimony. One party rule would be better. The Democratic Party should just disband and let Republicans control Congress and the White House. That way, there would be no doubt about our national identity and common purpose, and no opportunity for resentment and division. Letting the American people actually vote on whether or not they want Obama to serve a second term would just lead to more polarization.

But I'm also struck by the larger context. Matt Gertz noted that Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell are regular Fox News contributors, who supported Republican congressional candidates this year, and who'll soon join Republican politicians and pundits at a right-wing retreat founded by activist David Horowitz.

Maybe now would be a good time for the Washington Post to stop running their tiresome screeds as if they have Democratic interests at heart?

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

DUELING ORIENTATIONS.... If Tea Party groups want to appear less hysterical in the eyes of lawmakers they hope to influence, they're off to a comically bad start.

Apparently, incoming freshmen to the U.S. House will begin their official orientation programs today. But before this initial round of meetings, there are competing "alternative" orientation programs, with some conservatives seeking to tell the incoming lawmakers what and how to think before they're "corrupted" by the establishment.

The Tea Party Patriots ... had announced just after the election that it was holding an orientation event for new members of Congress. But the Claremont Institute, a small conservative think tank in California, was hosting one at the same time. On Thursday, the group sent an e-mail to supporters, warning that the institute was trying to co-opt the freshmen.

"They are apparently trying to make sure that instead of sitting with grass-roots tea party leaders from around the country, the lobbyists and consultants can sink their claws into the freshmen, and begin to 'teach them' the ways of D.C.," said the letter, which was signed by organizers Jenny Beth Martin, Dawn Wilder, Mark Meckler and Debbie Dooley. Also included in the e-mail were the personal e-mails and cell phone numbers of many candidates who had won election to Congress -- and even a few who didn't.

The subject line of the email read, "Don't Let Them Steal OUR New Members of Congress."

Right on schedule, hundreds of enraged zealots began calling the representatives-elect, demanding they attend a conservative orientation program, instead of the other conservative orientation program.

It's worth emphasizing that the Claremont Institute isn't exactly composed of moderates. It's a fairly prominent far-right think tank, cozy with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party, which has even hosted lectures attended by fringe extremists like Christine O'Donnell.

And just for added fun, also note that Claremont said "it was actually just hosting a meeting the freshmen had organized themselves." It wasn't a nefarious plot to corrupt anyone.

How silly was all of this? RedState's Erick Erickson explained, "For the record, the Claremont Institute is on the opposite coast of the United States from Washington and composed of some of the wingiest wingers in the entire wing-o-sphere. This handwringing about 'Washington Insiders' is verging on paranoid.... Certainly there are legitimate concerns and there must be caution, but Good Lord people, by the time all the cards are on the table we're going to have all the tea party groups labeling their competitors as Washington Insiders. This is nuts."

I knew Erickson would eventually write something I could agree with.

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

Bookmark and Share

'SPINNING THE REVOLVING DOOR BACKWARD'.... Quite a few successful candidates this year struck me as the kind of folks who shouldn't have even run in the first place. Floridians elected a criminal as governor; Ohioans elected Bush's failed budget director as a U.S. senator; Kentuckians elected an odd, self-accredited ophthalmologist to the Senate, too.

But the one statewide campaign that stood out as particularly bizarre was in Indiana, where Hoosiers did the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.

When Cooper Industries, a century-old manufacturing company based in Texas, moved its headquarters to Bermuda to slash its American income tax bill, it had to turn to a Washington insider with extraordinary contacts to soothe a seething Congress.

Dan Coats, then a former senator and ambassador to Germany, served as co-chairman of a team of lobbyists in 2007 who worked behind the scenes to successfully block Senate legislation that would have terminated a tax loophole worth hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cash flow to Cooper Industries.

Now Mr. Coats, a Republican from Indiana, is about to make a striking transition. He is spinning the revolving door backward.

Exactly. If you listen to what a lot of voters say they want this year, especially in conservative states like Indiana where a huge chunk of the population identifies as Tea Partiers, it's candidates who are ready to break with the past, question long-held assumptions, relate to the concerns of regular people, and can bring a fresh perspective to the entrenched insiders in Congress.

And with that in mind, Hoosiers, by a 15-point margin, elected an old, wealthy Washington insider, who left Indiana more than a decade ago, and who's spent several years as a corporate lobbyist. Indeed, Coats intends to go to the Senate and vote on issues he handled as a lobbyist, and has no intention of recusing himself when his former clients will be affected by his votes.

A lot of folks have the impression that all the power in Washington rests with powerful, deep-pocketed special interests. Working families struggle to be heard, but corporate lobbyists can gain access, direct contracts, write bills, and protect loopholes out of public view.

In other words, regular American tend to resent people like Dan Coats, who parlayed his public service into a lucrative lobbying career, including his successful efforts to protect companies that shipped jobs overseas.

And yet, Dan Coats is now a senator-elect.

It's amazing, in a disheartening way.

Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

BIPARTISANSHIP -- WITH A TWIST.... I have an op-ed in the New York Daily News today exploring an idea that I've been kicking around for a while. Here's the lede:

Two short years ago, one of the presidential tickets had the wisdom to not only acknowledge the climate crisis, but also to present credible solutions to address it.

If elected, the tandem told Americans, they intended to do what the Bush administration would not: establish "a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions" and pursue "alternatives to carbon-based fuels." The result, they said, would be "a better future for our children."

The candidates were John McCain and Sarah Palin.

The nuances matter, but the differences between the Democratic vision on energy policy and the McCain-Palin platform are relatively minor. In fact, if the White House were prepared to open negotiations with a Republican-led House next year, President Obama could do worse than starting with the McCain-Palin plan.

With that in mind, why doesn't he do just that? What better way for a Democratic President to demonstrate a commitment to bipartisanship than by embracing specific Republican proposals?

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. At first blush, this might seem as if I'm suggesting that, in the wake of the midterms, President Obama abandon his agenda, move to the right, and adopt Republican ideas.

But that's not what I'm suggesting at all. In fact, it's largely the opposite -- I argue in the piece that President Obama should continue to endorse the same agenda he's embraced all along, but do so by characterizing his ideas as bipartisan ideas.

In other words, Obama wants a cap-and-trade plan? Well, McCain/Palin called for cap-and-trade, so the president can say he's endorsing the McCain/Palin energy proposal. Obama wants comprehensive immigration reform? Well Bush's proposal on the issue is very similar, so the president can say he's endorsing the Bush immigration plan.

The conventional wisdom suggests the White House will have to choose between pushing Obama's ideas and reaching out to Republicans. But what if the White House could reach out to Republicans by presenting Obama's ideas as actual GOP proposals?

The goal would have less to do with magnanimity and more to do with throwing Republicans off-balance. It ultimately becomes something of a dare: will Republicans condemn policies crafted by their own leaders as quasi-socialist radicalism?

Take a look and let me know what you think.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

SOMEBODY GOT TO CINDY.... Cindy McCain, perhaps best known as Sen. John McCain's (R) second/current wife, did something pretty brave this week. While her husband positions himself as one of Congress' leading anti-gay lawmakers, Cindy McCain appeared in a NOH8 activist video in support of gay rights.

In the television ad, she tells viewers, "Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future.... They can't serve our country openly." She added that the government "treats the LGBT community like second class citizens."

It was a striking move, given that her husband is leading the charge to ensure gay servicemen and women "can't serve our country openly" and that the LGBT community is treated "like second class citizens."

But in an even more striking move, Cindy McCain is now saying she no longer believes what she said in the commercial.

Cindy McCain announced that she is against the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" one day after she appeared in a video where she lends her support to end the ban on gays openly serving in the military. [...]

"I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT," she tweeted.

Look, I really don't care what the spouses or children of policymakers have to say about current events. Cindy McCain's views on discrimination, or any other issue, are her business.

Until, that is, she decides she wants to play a more active, high-profile role in the larger public debate. In this case, on Thursday, Cindy McCain wanted to use her role as public figure to tell Americans how wrong it is that gay servicemen and women "can't serve our country openly" and that the LGBT community is treated "like second class citizens." And on Friday, Cindy McCain wanted to use her role as public figure to tell Americans that gay servicemen and women shouldn't "serve our country openly" and that the LGBT community deserves to be treated "like second class citizens."

I'm not sure which is more troubling -- the fact that Cindy McCain is willing to publicly contradict herself so blatantly, or that her embarrassed husband probably pressured her to say something that's at odds with her own beliefs.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 13, 2010

WHEN THE 'WATER'S EDGE' STANDARD DISAPPEARS.... If our political system made more sense, this would be an astounding scandal that would dominate the discourse.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday during a meeting in New York that the new GOP majority in the House will "serve as a check" on the Obama administration, a statement unusual for its blunt disagreement with U.S. policy delivered directly to a foreign leader.

"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," read a statement from Cantor's office on the one-on-one meeting. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."

This just isn't normal. Laura Rozen called the meeting itself "unusual, if not unheard of." But it's what Cantor said that's astounding.

We're talking about a powerful member of Congress engaged in foreign policy, vowing to a foreign government to oppose the administration's policies regarding that government. Ron Kampeas from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news agency said he can't remember any U.S. official ever doing this. "[T]o have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary," Kampeas said this week.

It is that and more. Cantor not only met in private with a foreign leader to undercut the foreign policy of the elected American president, he proceeded to brag about it.

Also keep in mind, a few years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad. At the time, none other than Eric Cantor personally accused Pelosi of possibly violating the Logan Act, "which makes it a felony for any American 'without authority of the United States' to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government's behavior on any disputes with the United States."

As Adam Serwer noted yesterday, "Based on Cantor's own standard, he's just committed a felony."

In 2007, John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, insisted, "I would simply hope that people would understand that, under the Constitution, the president conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House."

OK, but can we apply that same standard to the House Minority Whip?

Remember, Republican standards in this area seem to vary widely based on the president's party.

This is going back a bit, but Glenn Greenwald had an item last year that seems especially relevant now.

Here's what happened in 2006 when Al Gore gave a speech at a conference in Saudi Arabia in which he criticized Bush policies towards the Muslim world -- as summarized by The New York Times' Chris Sullentrop:

"As House Democrats David Bonior and Jim McDermott may recall from their trip to Baghdad on the eve of the Iraq war, nothing sets conservative opinionmongers on edge like a speech made by a Democrat on foreign soil. Al Gore traveled to Saudi Arabia last week, and in a speech there on Sunday he criticized 'abuses' committed by the U.S. government against Arabs after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A burst of flabbergasted conservative blogging followed the Associated Press dispatch about the speech, with the most clever remark coming from Mark Steyn, who called the former vice president 'Sheikh al-Gore.' The editorial page of Investor's Business Daily accused Gore of 'supreme disloyalty to his country'. . . ."

TigerHawk does the best job of explaining why speeches like this get some people so worked up:

"There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections. Gore's speech is both destructive and disloyal, not because of its content -- which is as silly as it is subversive -- but because of its location and its intended audience."

The Wall St. Journal's James Taranto accused Gore of "denouncing his own government on foreign soil" and quoted the above accusation of "disloyality." Commentary was abundant all but accusing Gore of treason for criticizing the U.S. in a foreign land.

And that was just Gore criticizing. This week, Eric Cantor met privately with a foreign head of state to promise to undermine the foreign policy of the United States.

Remember when American officials were supposed to think foreign policy issues stopped at water's edge?

This is a legitimate scandal worthy of far more attention. When dealing with foreign policy and climate change, Republicans believe in trying to deliberately sabotage the position of the U.S. government. The same is true of U.S. policy towards Iran, and in the case of New START, possibly even U.S. policy towards Russia. Now it's true of U.S. policy towards Israel, too.

It's obviously not unreasonable for Americans to debate whether the Obama administration is pursuing the correct course on foreign policy, and I fully expect members of Congress from both parties to demand accountability of the White House. People can and should speak out when they disagree with the administration's approach to Israel, Iran, Russia, or any other country.

But Cantor's move is something altogether different. Just a few years after he suggested it was literally criminal for an American official to talk to a foreign leader and work against the sitting president. Now, Cantor has done just that.

Where's the outrage?

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (98)

Bookmark and Share

DEFICIT, SCHMEFICIT.... A CBS News poll released this week asked Americans what they'd like to see Congress focus on next year. The clear winner was "economy/jobs," cited by 56% of respondents. Health care was a distant second at 14%. The deficit, the wars, immigration, taxes, and education were all mentioned, but their results were in the low single digits.

Of course, the public will not get its wish. Economic growth and job creation should be the focus, but Republicans, with their new House majority, have already made clear that their top priorities are fairly low priorities for the American mainstream -- gutting the health care system, protecting tax cuts for the wealthy, and reducing the deficit. (Yes, those are contradictory goals, since gutting health care and cutting taxes would make the deficit much worse.)

The larger point to remember, though, is a truth the political world often forgets: deficit reduction is a political loser because people really don't care. Steve Kornacki had a very good item on this the other day.

Sure, you can find polls that show an unusually high number of Americans expressing concerns about deficits and the debt, but this sentiment is explained by two phenomena: (1) Republican voters (and functionally Republican "independents") echoing their party leaders (and right-wing talk show hosts and activists), who identified the debt as a political weapon to use against Obama from the earliest days of his presidency; and (2) Authentic swing voters (that is, the small share of registered independents who really do swing back-and-forth between the parties) pointing to the debt as a top worry because their intense economic anxiety has made them receptive to the GOP's doomsday warnings about runaway deficits.

So, let's say that Obama actually did embrace Simpson-Bowles and got it enacted. Would this "restore his cred with Independents"? Not at all. First, as noted above, a significant chunk of the "independents" who are worried about the debt are actually functional Republicans -- that is, they vote Republican in election after election but like to call themselves "independent." These voters would not suddenly give Obama credit for tackling the deficit; they'd simply follow along with whatever line top GOP leaders and activists came up with in response. As for the "real" independents, the small chunk who aren't functionally part of either party, their debt/deficit fears are driven mainly by economic anxiety, so they'd only give Obama credit if the economy simultaneously improved.

And since focusing on deficit reduction generally happens at the expense of growth, the goal would be counter-productive anyway.

The track record here is pretty consistent -- Reagan was the father of the modern deficit, and no one cared. When Mondale tried to make deficit reduction central to his '84 campaign, he lost 49 states. Clinton was the father of modern deficit reduction, but no one much cared about that, either, and by the time he left office after two terms, much of the country didn't even realize he'd completely eliminated the deficit and had begun paying off the debt. George W. Bush was the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but on the long list of Bush's failures, most Americans don't even consider the $5 trillion he added to the debt. Obama has actually reduced the deficit over the last year, but no one actually hears deficit hawks praising him for it.

Voters want the economy to grow. They want more jobs. If they actually cared about the deficit, they'd be outraged by the notion of a new round of tax cuts (they're not), and supportive of measures like the Simpson/Bowles plan (they're really not).

It's not altogether clear people even know what the deficit is. For many, it's likely that the deficit is just something that's "bad." Indeed, given that deficit concerns tend to coincide with economic downturns, some folks might see a correlation -- the deficit is high and the economy is bad, they figure, so maybe if the deficit were lower the economy might get better.

All of this is nonsense, of course, but it's worth remembering when various political players suggest policymakers' popularity is riding on deficit reduction. It's not.

Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN (AND WHY) BIPARTISANSHIP IS IMPOSSIBLE.... Fox News personality Dana Perino, best known for her work as the Bush White House's final press secretary, complained this week that Democrats refused to "reach out" to Republicans during the debate over health care reform. GOP officials, she said, offered good "ideas," but the Democratic majority wouldn't listen.

As a substantive matter, Perino is deeply confused, and seems to have forgotten about months of outreach to the GOP and the incorporation of all kinds of GOP ideas into the final policy.

But more important that Perino's lack of familiarity with current events is the larger point about bipartisan policymaking. It doesn't fit well into the Fox News narrative, but Ezra Klein noted yesterday that over the last century, Democrats consistently moved to the right to try and garner more support, and "Republicans moved further right every time Democrats tried."

When Truman tried to pass what was, in effect, Medicare for all, Republicans balked and said they preferred a more market-based pay-or-play system. When Clinton endorsed the market-based pay-or-play system, Republicans balked again, saying that they preferred a mandate/subsidies kind of system. When Obama endorsed the mandate/subsidies system crafted by Republicans in the '90s and adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Republicans balked again, this time saying they don't want to address the problem at all.

As Ezra concluded:

So over the last 80 years or so, Democrats have responded to Republican opposition by moving to the right, and Republicans have responded by moving even further to the right. In other words, Democrats have been willing to adopt Republican ideas if doing so meant covering everybody (or nearly everybody), while Republicans were willing to abandon Republican ideas if sticking by them meant compromising with the Democrats.

But because Democrats were insistent on getting something that would help the uninsured, they've ended up looking like the partisans, as they keep pushing bills Republicans refuse to sign onto.

It's quite a racket.

It's also, by the way, a model with broader applicability. As we've seen repeatedly with a wide variety of policy efforts, Democrats are interesting in solving a policy problem and are willing to negotiate to get something done. Republicans are interesting in preserving ideological purity and ignoring policy problems that can't be solved through tax cuts for millionaires.

The political world need not ponder why bipartisanship seems so impossible. The answer is fairly obvious.

Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is additional fallout in Oklahoma, where voters recently passed a constitutional amendment to fight sharia-law measures that don't exist. Last week, legal experts discovered that the language of the amendment is broad enough to prohibit consideration of the Ten Commandments.

This week, we learned that the state law, currently on hold by court order, also inadvertently undermines Native-American faiths.

Oklahoma has the second largest population of Native Americans in the U.S and law experts like Oklahoma University law professor Taiawagi Helton point out that language in the law banning courts from looking at "legal precepts of other nations or cultures" could pose a problem if applied to tribal legal cases, as the tribes are considered sovereign nations.

In fact, the Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission released an official memo on October 20 explaining how the "lack of specific tribal law language" could "damage the sovereignty of all Oklahoma tribes" and "starkly reminds [the Commission] that some Oklahoma lawmakers forgot that our nation and state were built on the principles, blood, and back of other nations and cultures, namely, ou[r] tribes."

Oklahoma also appears to have accidentally undermined state businesses that rely on "international treaties to uphold contracts."

Right-wing activists really just wanted to undermine Muslim Americans, but weren't quite sharp enough to recognize the collateral damage of their bigotry.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has agreed to display a Nativity Scene at the governor's mansion in Richmond, following a request from the Catholic League. The group's leader, Bill Donohue, reportedly sent Nativity Scenes to all 50 governors as part of an effort to counter the "atheists [who] are out in force this year trying to neuter Christmas."

* Speaking of atheists, the New York Times reported this week that "four separate and competing national organizations representing various streams of atheists, humanists and freethinkers will soon be spreading their gospel through advertisements on billboards, buses and trains, and in newspapers and magazines." (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

* Radical pastor Philip L. "Flip" Benham, head of the Dallas-based Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, was found guilty this week of stalking North Carolina physicians who perform abortions. Benham was sentenced to two years probation.

* And American Roman Catholic bishops are wrapping up a conference in Baltimore today, helping clergy members to learn how to distinguish between those who need exorcisms and those who need a psychiatrist. The bishops insist this is not part of a larger effort to revive the practice of exorcisms, which has largely fallen out of favor in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.

Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

DEMINT MAY NOT CARE ABOUT 'MAKING UP'.... In recent years, various traditions, niceties, and norms in the U.S. Senate have largely disappeared. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), for example, likes to tell the story of when she arrived in the chamber as a new member, and then-Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) gave her some advice: never campaign against a colleague, even from the other party. Doing so damages the collegiality of the institution, and makes cooperation too difficult.

Needless to say, senators don't think that way anymore. But even under the new norms, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pushed the envelope this year, not only campaigning against Democrats, but also seeking to defeat one of his own Republican colleagues, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, whom DeMint considered insufficiently right-wing.

After Murkowski lost to Joe Miller in a GOP primary, DeMint's move looked like a good move. Now that Murkowski appears poised to win as a write-in candidate, DeMint's move appears less wise, and more likely to cause intra-party tension.

Yesterday, Murkowski suggested she's still not pleased with her far-right colleague.

The Alaska senator, who appears poised to win reelection as a write-in GOP candidate for Senate, suggested she's not eager to reach out to DeMint, who backed her challenger Joe Miller in the Alaska Senate race.

DeMint, who has said he and Murkowski might have "some making up to do" if she wins reelection, would have to act first.

"He has suggested that he's got some making up to do," Murkowski told CNN's "John King, USA" in an interview to air this evening. "I'll let him make that first move."

I have a hunch he'll be reluctant to do that, but we'll see.

In the bigger picture, though, it's a reminder that for all his far-right posturing and bizarre ideas, Jim DeMint just doesn't seem to be well liked by his own Republican caucus.

Last week, after DeMint-backed Senate candidates lost, contributing to the GOP's failed attempt to take back the majority, more than a few Republicans blamed the South Carolina senator for the failure. Politico noted that a "high-profile senator" said DeMint has "almost no following within the caucus," and kept the party from "realizing our potential."

There are occasional rumors about DeMint seeking a leadership post or possibly even seeking national office, but it's worth remembering that on a basic level, Republicans don't care for the guy.

Steve Benen 9:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

GREASING THE SKIDS FOR NEW START RATIFICATION.... The Obama administration and several key senators are still anxious to ratify the New START nuclear treaty during the lame-duck session. They'll need 67 votes, and by all accounts, they're close.

The biggest obstacle at this point appears to be Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who, oddly enough, has said he'll try to kill the treaty unless the White House agrees to spend more money on the U.S. nuclear arsenal. (Usually, conservative lawmakers threaten to kill measures to ensure less spending, not more.)

Yesterday, the White House moved to satisfy Kyl's concerns, and hopefully, bring New START closer to ratification.

In a last-minute bid to save a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, the Obama administration has offered to spend $4 billion more over five years on the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, congressional sources said Friday.

President Obama has made passage of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, one of his top priorities for the lame-duck session starting next week. Officials worry that the pact could face long delays, or even fail, if it is put off until next year, when the Democrats' Senate majority will shrink.

Republicans have conditioned their support for the treaty on a big budget increase to fix up the country's aging weapons-production facilities.

Administration officials reportedly visited individually with skeptical Republican senators yesterday, outlining the commitment of $4.1 billion in funding. The AP added, "In a sign of the urgency of the administration's pitch, government officials traveled to Kyl's home state of Arizona to brief him on the proposal, the aide said."

That should at least make Kyl feel important.

While we wait, it's been almost a year since U.S. inspectors lost the ability to keep tabs on Russian nukes. The Pentagon is anxious to have the treaty ratified so checks can be reinstated -- this is the first time in 15 years we've lost the ability to inspect Russian long-range nuclear bases -- but Senate Republicans still aren't in any hurry.

Part of the problem has to do with basic ignorance. Jon Kyl conceded in August that he just assumed, falsely, that nuclear-site inspections were continuing while he held up New START. In other words, he just didn't know what he was talking about.

Republican obstructionism isn't just based on knee-jerk, reactionary tendencies; sometimes it's also often based on Republican ignorance about issues of global importance.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE DEMS SETTLE LEADERSHIP DISPUTE.... The last thing House Democrats wanted to do was start the post-election season with a bitter, intra-party dispute over leadership posts. But one has nevertheless been simmering on the Hill over the last week, with four people vying for three posts.

The House minority traditionally has three leadership positions: Minority Leader, Minority Whip, and Conference Chair. Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is slated to get the top slot, and Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) will apparently stay on in his current post. But outgoing Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and outgoing Majority Whip James Clyburn both want to be Minority Whip.

Pelosi signaled the other day her desire to strike some kind of deal. Last night, one came together.

Top House Democrats said late Friday night that they had settled on an arrangement that avoided a divisive fight for the No. 2 position in the party when it reverts to the minority in January.

In a statement, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would nominate Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina to be the No. 3 Democrat when the party holds an internal party election on Wednesday.

In other words, it was a game of musical chairs, in which someone was going to get left out, so Dems added a chair. Hoyer will be Whip and Clyburn will get a newly-created position.

It's not clear, at least not yet, exactly what this new leadership post will entail -- or what it'll be called -- but Pelosi's office said last night that the post will rank above caucus chair in the hierarchy, keeping Clyburn at #3. Larson gets to stay in the leadership, though his post is slightly less important now, and Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), who was concerned about getting squeezed out, will remain as conference vice chair.

In the process, Dems have avoided "a divisive leadership battle" and will vote to approve this new slate on Wednesday.

If only negotiating with Republicans were this easy.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 12, 2010

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

* As G20 meetings go, I wouldn't necessarily characterize the South Korean gathering as a success: "Leaders of the world's biggest economies agreed on Friday to curb 'persistently large imbalances' in saving and spending but deferred until next year tough decisions on how to identify and fix them."

* Then again, the U.S. still has the influence to set the agenda, and "it could have been far worse."

* Not a surprise: "Rejecting a request by a Republican gay rights group, the U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to stop enforcement of the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy while a lower court hears a challenge to the ban."

* This could be really interesting: "Maryland's Attorney General filed a complaint in federal court this week alleging that the company and two individuals behind election day robocalls that told mostly Democratic voters to 'relax' and not bother voting violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)." New estimates suggest the calls reached more than 100,000 Maryland households -- double the previous estimate.

* I have no idea how or whether this will work: "After a brief and interrupted dalliance, Newsweek, the 77-year-old magazine, and The Daily Beast, [Tina] Brown's two-year-old Web site, have decided to put their cultural differences aside and will join forces."

* I was going to mock Arthur Laffer's latest take on the economy, which is truly laughable, but it looks like Jay Bookman beat me to it.

* If the Simpson/Bowles debt reduction plan were adopted, the impact on higher education would be dramatic -- and not in a good way.

* When Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is so dumb that even Neil Cavuto feels compelled to correct him, you know Inhofe has pushed the envelope.

* And congratulations to Josh Marshall and the whole TPM team on their 10th anniversary. Many happy returns. (Disclosure: I worked for TPM in 2007.) Josh Green, who was "present at the creation," has a fascinating item on how TPM got started.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

IF THE PENTAGON DOESN'T WANT THE MONEY.... I've made the case on more than a few occasions that officials shouldn't be able to call themselves "fiscal conservatives" while also insisting that the Pentagon budget is untouchable. It's just a basic test of credibility -- the United States now spends about as much on defense as every other country on the planet combined. To call for budget cuts while leaving defense alone is irresponsible.

Some conservatives -- Kristol, Palin, Rubio, et al -- disagree with this. Fine. But can we at least agree that spending money on defense bills to pay for things the Pentagon doesn't want is an immediate credibility killer?

Tanya Somanader highlights a great example today, pointing to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R), a right-wing Georgian, who can't wait to slash spending for all kinds of social programs, but also happens to favor opposes unnecessary defense spending.

The F-22 stealth fighter jet, for example, is a weapon designed to address threats last faced during the Cold War. It "has not performed a single mission" in Iraq or Afghanistan, and comes with a $120 million price tag per plane. Coupled with the $8 billion it would cost the Pentagon to upgrade the 100 F-22s already in use, the F-22 landed on Defense Secretary Gates's chopping block last year. After consulting with other Defense officials, Gates concluded, "there is no military requirement" for creating more F-22s.

Yet despite that, and the overwhelming bipartisan agreement that the plane qualifies as taxpayer waste, and in spite of own his commitment to cutting spending, Gingrey now thinks he knows better than the Pentagon and is calling for resuming production of more F-22s. Not only is Gingrey willing to waste taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary and unwanted weapon, he's willing to fight his own party to do it, because the planes are built in his state.

It's also worth remembering that for every hour the F-22 spends in the air, it requires more than 30 hours of maintenance. One of its key problems is -- I'm not kidding -- "vulnerability to rain." After years of effort, the plane, in operational flight tests, has met only seven of its 22 "key requirements." It features a radar-absorbing canopy that tends to imprison pilots for hours. Seriously.

The Obama administration -- you know, the folks Republicans like to characterize as liberal big spenders who can't be trusted with the nation's checkbook -- successfully scrapped this indefensible waste of Americans' money. It wasn't easy, but last year, the White House managed to secure bipartisan support to stop the unnecessary spending.

But next year, a leading conservative Republican wants to bring it all back. I wonder how many Tea Partiers are aware of this.

Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

AN AWKWARD TEST OF FISCAL CONSERVATISM.... Conservative writer Tim Carney raised an interesting point the other day that seems likely to put some Republican senators in a very awkward position.

Republicans talk about ending wasteful government intervention. Congressional Democrats say they want to protect the environment. And Barack Obama claims he's looking for bipartisan cooperation and reform. All of these goals would be served by rolling back ethanol subsidies.

"A Republican takeover of the House of Representatives," Bloomberg News speculated this week, "may mean that U.S. subsidies aiding ethanol producers will be cut after the party pledged to reduce government spending."

We'll find out within months if that's putting too much stake in GOP rhetoric.

It may not even take that long. Two existing ethanol subsidies are due to expire at the end of the calendar year, which means Congress may have to act during the lame-duck session to save them -- if they're to be saved.

So, what exactly are conservative Republicans planning to do about this? On the one hand, they're inclined to do what corporate lobbyists tell them to do, and the lobbyists naturally want the industry subsidies to continue. On the other, the subsides are expensive, unnecessary, and ultimately counter-productive. If there was an intellectual consistency to the Tea Partiers' ideology -- a big "if" -- this seems like exactly the kind of budget cut the free-market-loving activists could get behind.

And so, as Carney put it, "ethanol becomes a good test for the supposedly reborn Republican Party." It does, indeed.

What will be especially interesting is if Dems decide the kick the can down the road a bit -- extending the subsidies for, say, six months -- and letting the next Congress deal with the issue. Or better yet, Dems can simply allow the subsidies to expire this year, and let the next Congress decide whether to resuscitate them.

Would a GOP-led House, and an expanded GOP Senate caucus, rally behind ethanol subsidies costing $6 billion?

The larger political pressures here are also worth keeing an eye on. The American Future Fund, for example, is a shadowy right-wing group that raised all kinds of secret money to help Republicans win midterm elections. The Fund was created in large part by a wealthy executive of an ethanol producer -- and it stands to reason he'll expect his GOP friends to repay his assistance with these subsidies.

This could get especially awkward for some key conservative lawmakers who've supported the ethanol policy in the past, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), but who are anxious to prove their fiscal conservatism.

If Dems play this right, the subsidies could be a carefully-applied wedge, driving divisions between the party's activists and the party's corporate benefactors. It's definitely an issue to look out for in the coming months.

Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

THE BOOKS GEORGE W. BUSH 'WROTE'.... It's probably fair to say that even George W. Bush's remaining defenders wouldn't characterize him as learned or cerebral. Whatever his well-hidden strengths might be, the failed former president has been rather candid about his lack of interest in books, newspapers, and people with post-graduate degrees.

But Bush appears to take some pride in having written his new book. Ryan Grim reports today that this isn't quite what happened.

Crown Publishing ... got a mash-up of worn-out anecdotes from previously published memoirs written by his subordinates, from which Bush lifts quotes word for word, passing them off as his own recollections. He took equal license in lifting from nonfiction books about his presidency or newspaper or magazine articles from the time. Far from shedding light on how the president approached the crucial "decision points" of his presidency, the clip jobs illuminate something shallower and less surprising about Bush's character: He's too lazy to write his own memoir.

Bush, on his book tour, makes much of the fact that he largely wrote the book himself, guffawing that critics who suspected he didn't know how to read are now getting a comeuppance. Not only does Bush know how to read, it turns out, he knows how to Google, too. Or his assistant does.

The memoir features anecdotes about events Bush didn't witness, and remarks Bush didn't hear. Perhaps he got confused about what a "memoir" is.

I'd just add a minor detail Ryan didn't mention: this has happened before. About 10 years ago, Bush published an "autobiography" of sorts, written entirely in first person, called "A Charge to Keep." The book, however, was entirely ghost-written.

But at least that book didn't include lifted text. For that matter, Bush never really claimed to have written his autobiography, making these revelations about "Decision Points" slightly worse.

Ryan concluded:

In most instances of Bush's literary swiping, he was at least present for the scene. But the point of a memoir is that it is the author's version of events. Bush's book is a collection of other people's versions of events. But that's not what Bush promises readers. "Decision Points is based primarily on my recollections. With help from researchers, I have confirmed my account with government documents, personal interviews, news reports, and other sources, some of which remain classified," he offers. Bush, in his memoir, confesses to authorizing waterboarding, which is a war crime, so the lifting of a few passages might seem like a minor infraction. But Bush's laziness undermines the historical value of the memoir. Bush "recollects" - in a more literal sense of the term - quotes by pulling his and others verbatim from other books, calling into question what he genuinely remembers from the time and casting doubt on any conclusions he draws about what his mindset was at the time.

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

IF IT'S SUNDAY.... Mark Halperin called the guest list for Sunday's "Meet the Press" an "all-star lineup." That's not quite the description I'd use.

We'll first see an interview with Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod. That makes sense.

Then viewers will see an "exclusive!" interview with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). This makes a lot less sense -- it'll be his third appearance on "Meet the Press" this year, his sixth in the last 21 months, and his 26th Sunday show appearance since President Obama's inauguration. That's obviously an average of more than an appearance per month, every month, for nearly two years.

And then there's the roundtable, which will apparently cover the debt commission's report, featuring Alan Greenspan (conservative), disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (conservative), former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (conservative Democrat), and journalist Bethany McLean.

Gingrich, by the way, made more appearances on "Meet the Press" last year than anyone else in the country, and Ford has made more appearances on "Meet the Press" this year than anyone else in the country. Indeed, in the case of the latter, Ford will be making his seventh appearance in the last nine months.

Why Harold Ford? Jon Chait recently guessed:

What explains the ubiquity of the bland and notably un-incisive Ford? Part of it may be his preternatural ability to meld himself into the prevailing sentiment of whatever milieu in which he finds himself. But primarily I believe Meet The Press always invites Ford for the same reason there are so many Olive Gardens -- you always know exactly what you're going to get.

That sounds about right, but I'd add one thing: Harold Ford, Jr., is the chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. The Sunday shows tend to go out of their way to avoid Democrats, but when they find a conservative Democrat who'll argue that the party should move to the right, the bookers are bound to keep bringing him back.

Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

NOT MUCH OF A WELCOME PARTY.... When Republicans took the congressional majority in 1994, a clear majority of the public was happy about the change in power. When Congress switched again in 2006, an even larger majority was pleased with the new incoming majority and its agenda.

For all the assumptions among Republicans about voters giving them a mandate, and public support for what the GOP intends to do, there's ample evidence to the contrary.

Americans may have put Republicans back in charge of the House and strengthened the party's hand in the Senate in the 2010 elections, but there is little excitement about the results or optimism for the future, according to a new Pew poll.

Less than half -- 48 percent -- described themselves as "happy" that Republicans took over the House, while 34 percent said they were "unhappy" about the power change. Those numbers compare very unfavorably to how people felt when Democrats took over the House in 2006 (60 percent happy/24 percent unhappy) and when Republicans reclaimed the House majority in 1994 (57 percent happy/ 31 percent unhappy).

That lack of genuine excitement about the election is paired with an uncertainty about Republican policies for the future. Forty-one percent approved of the GOP's plans while 37 percent disapproved -- far below the 50 percent approve/21 percent disapprove for Democratic plans when they took over in the 2006 election.... The Republicans' victory then is best understood as a rejection of Democratic policies by voters rather than a warm embrace of the policies put forward by the GOP.

For two weeks, GOP leaders have been claiming to speak for the country. The "American people" gave them a House majority to cut taxes. The "American people" empowered them to cut spending and reduce the deficit. The "American people" want Republicans to gut the health care system and cut education spending.

Reality check: the "American people" think the economy stinks so they punished the incumbent majority. Republicans made gains because they were the alternative, not because they were right.

We're talking about the first time in recent memory in which an unpopular party was replaced with an even more unpopular party. That should be a weight on GOP shoulders, not a chip on GOP shoulders.

If Republicans think they're ahead because voters are buying what they're selling, they're badly misreading the election results.

Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

HOPING TO CLEAR UP 'MIXED SIGNALS'.... Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), who was on board with the original tax plan presented by President Obama, this morning lamented the "mixed signals" coming from the White House on tax policy.

That seems more than fair. The president and his team have been open to negotiation (which is fine), but in the process, have been inconsistent at times as to what they want (which isn't fine).

But regardless of what we hear from White House staffers and through unsourced reports, the best sense of President Obama's approach to any dispute is President Obama himself. And this morning, he adopted a line far more encouraging than the one we heard from David Axelrod on Wednesday.

After yesterday's mini-freakout over what exactly White House adviser David Axelrod told the Huffington Post about President Obama's intention to cave to Republicans urging an extension of all the Bush tax cuts -- not just those for middle class incomes -- Obama took time out of his swing through Asia to reiterate his opposition to the GOP plan.

"Here's the right interpretation -- I want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle class families starting on January 1st. That is my number one priority for those families and for our economy." Obama told reporters gathered in Seoul, South Korea when asked about the Huffington Post article, in which Axelrod appeared to suggest the White House was backing off its strong opposition to extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

"I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high income tax cuts," Obama said. "I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their number one priority is making sure that we are dealing with our debt and our deficit."

The president concluded, "But I'm not going to negotiate here in Seoul. My job is to negotiate back in Washington, with Republican and Democratic leaders."

Obviously, these remarks are preferrable to Axelrod's, and suggest the White House position hasn't really changed. The next step, then, is to see how the president and his team proceed on the policy.

CNN, meanwhile, is reporting today that there's an "emerging tax cut compromise" that would simply keep the existing tax rates in place for everyone -- without paying for any of it, of course -- for a year or two.

Under no circumstances should that be considered a "compromise." A policy in which Republicans get everything they want for a couple of years, at which point we'll do all of this again, would feature no concessions from the GOP -- which, oddly enough, continues to fight against permanent tax cuts for the middle class, a detail Dems should probably be repeating a little more often.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The tallies in Alaska continue to look very good for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R). Tthe state's Division of Elections has reviewed write-in ballots for nearly half the state and she's winning about 98% of them. Counting will continue through the weekend.

* There are two U.S. House races in California in which a winner has not yet been determined, but yesterday, both incumbents -- Democrats Jim Costa and Jerry McNerney -- declared victory.

* For those still counting, there are eight unresolved U.S. House races remaining.

* Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele picked up his first official challenger this morning, with former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis announcing his bid. Anuzis sought the same post last year, but lost to Steele.

* The RNC's field may get pretty large -- in addition to Anuzis, Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Rob Gleason is gearing up to run for the position.

* With his "listening tour" apparently over, former congressman and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel will formally launch his mayoral campaign in Chicago tomorrow.

* Outgoing Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle (R) will decide early next year whether she'll take on incumbent Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) in 2012.

* Speaking of 2012 Senate races, don't be too surprised if former Sen. Jim Talent (R) seeks a rematch against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D). Talent has been gearing up for the race for quite a while, and appears better organized than the other GOP candidates eyeing the race. In 2006, McCaskill beat Talent by three points in a strong year for Dems.

* And word went out yesterday that NBC and Politico will co-host the first debate for Republican presidential candidates in spring 2011 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif. You read that right -- the first debate for GOP presidential hopefuls is only about five months away. Expect a lot of kick-off announcements very early in 2011.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

CHUTZPAH WATCH.... A few years ago, when the "culture of corruption" became practically all-encompassing for congressional Republicans, Randy "Duke" Cunningham's criminal wrongdoing stood out for its outrageousness.

The bribes Cunningham accepted were almost cartoonish -- defense contractors wanted the right-wing Californian to give them a bunch of lucrative contracts, and in exchange, the contractors gave Cunningham $2.4 million in bribes, including a Rolls-Royce, a yacht, and a 19th-century Louis-Philippe commode.

When Cunningham resigned in disgrace and went to prison, he confessed and gave the appearance of remorse. "Your honor I have ripped my life to shreds due to my actions, my actions that I did to myself," he told the judge at his sentencing, after pleading guilty. "I made a very wrong turn. I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir."

That was in 2005. Now, however, Cunningham claims there's been a misunderstanding.

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, currently in prison for charges stemming from the bribes he confessed to accepting while in office, is presenting a new narrative to those who've been following his spiral into disgrace. Turns out, Cunningham now says, he wasn't bribed at all. At least not as much.

One of the men convicted of bribing Cunningham, former defense contractor Brent Wilkes, is attempting to reopen his case on the grounds that Cunningham now says the hundreds of thousands in money and stuff Wilkes was convicted of giving him was, in fact, not a bribe at all. In a pair of "declarations" Cunningham made in the past few weeks, the San Diego Union Tribune reports that former Republican congressman said the payments were just "gifts between longtime friends."

The shamelessness is amazing.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

WHAT'S THE REACH OF A TINY 'MOD SQUAD'?.... Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is arguably one of only a handful of moderate Republicans in Washington, told a local columnist something interesting the other day.

The day after the election, Collins told me she had received a post-election telephone call from Mark Kirk, the Illinois Republican elected to fill the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama.

"I can't wait to join your Mod Squad," Kirk told her.

"Mod," obviously, stands for "moderate" in this context. Kirk no doubt realizes there's a very small contingent of centrist Republicans, so he very likely called Collins to let her know he intends to be part of her tiny faction.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to believe him. It's a relative measurement in the 21st century, given the Republican Party's shift to the far-right, but Kirk was generally one of the less-right-wing members of the House Republican caucus. Even this year, during the Senate campaign, the biggest knock on Kirk was that he seemed to lie uncontrollably about his own background and experiences, not that he was an Illinois version of Jim DeMint.

Those of us who consider Senate head-counts, wondering which Republicans, if any, might be willing to break ranks on a key vote, tend to start and finish with Collins and Olympia Snowe. Should Kirk be considered in the same category going forward? Probably.

The question is whether any of this will matter.

Next year, we'll see a 53-47 Senate, with a Democratic majority. If recent history continues, the Republican minority will filibuster literally every measure of any significance, mandating 60 votes to on practically everything. The "Mod Squad" will no doubt be the target of Democratic outreach, but on its best day, we're talking about maybe four members: Snowe, Collins, Kirk, and depending on how confused he is on any given day, occasionally Scott Brown.

If all four vote with Dems on the big issues, and Dems somehow manage to stick together, they're still a few votes shy of passing worthwhile legislation.

What's more, half the "Mod Squad" is up for re-election in 2012 -- Snowe in Maine and Brown in Massachusetts. Both may face primary challengers -- with Snowe, it's a near certainty -- putting increased pressure on both not to cooperate with Democrats on anything.

And there's the matter that the House is so far to the right, and Republicans will have such a large majority, that getting the "Mod Squad" on board in the Senate probably won't make a difference. Over the last couple of years, if Democrats wanted to govern, they had to negotiate with Snowe and Collins. Next year will bring a new dynamic -- the White House will have to call Boehner and Cantor. If a bill the White House can tolerate can get through a conservative Republican House, the assumption is that getting bipartisan Senate support for the measure shouldn't be too difficult.

I'm sure the "Mod Squad" will be well intentioned, but I'm hard pressed to imagine it having much of an impact.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

MADDOW, STEWART, AND PARTISAN MEDIA.... As you've very likely heard, "The Rachel Maddow Show" was a little different last night, with a lengthy and fascinating conversation with Rachel and Jon Stewart. If you have time, I'd recommend checking out the 49-minute unedited version, which TRMS posted online.

The two covered quite a bit of ground, and I'm reluctant to focus on just one small portion, but there was an exchange that stood out for me. Stewart was holding out Fox News as a unique example in American media, but he argued that other outlets occasionally "fight fire with fire" and borrow a page from the FNC playbook.

Rachel noted that there's a difference between "having a point of view and being a partisan." Stewart agreed. Rachel added that she's a liberal, but doesn't consider Democrats her "team," referencing a word Stewart had used earlier.

He replied, "Fox is not partisan, either. They're really not.... They're ideological, but I don't know that they're partisan."

Stewart made a lot of important observations in this interview, some of which I strongly agreed with. But on this, I think he's badly mistaken. In fact, I'd argue he has it backwards -- Fox News isn't ideological, it's partisan. It exists for a purely partisan reason -- helping Republicans. It's why the network is run by Republicans; it's why the network hires Republicans; it's why the network's personalities run as Republicans, donate to Republicans, and endorse Republicans.

Ideology, as best as I can tell, is almost beside the point. If the Republican Party establishment were to decide today that it was wrong and that same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, Sean Hannity would be on the air tonight explaining what a triumph this is for the "party of freedom."

The Republican Party sets the agenda for Fox News, and in recent years, vice versa. When the network airs GOP talking points -- literally as on-air graphics, complete with the typos sent to Fox News by Republican officials -- it's a reminder that their raison d'etre is partisan, not ideological.

There was a lot more to the Maddow/Stewart interview, but I thought this point was worth clarifying.

Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share

FAMILIARITY, CONTEMPT, AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.... The Washington Post's Aaron Blake raised a point the other day that struck me as interesting, but mistaken. On Twitter, Blake wrote:

"Can we stop acting surprised when a politician's home state doesn't want him/her to run for prez? This is true everywhere."

Is it? I've had some trouble tracking down old polling data -- if anyone has better access to these numbers, I hope you'll let me know -- so this is admittedly just my sense of things, but Blake's observation seems to have plenty of counter-examples.

In advance of 2008, for example, voters in Illinois seemed pretty excited about the idea of Barack Obama running for president, just as New Yorkers approved of Hillary Clinton seeking national office. I think Texans were delighted when then-Gov. George W. Bush was pondering a presidential campaign in the late '90s, and Arkansans expected and supported then-Gov. Bill Clinton's '92 efforts.

The point isn't just academic. Public Policy Polling this week released some survey data from several key battleground states, and found that Minnesotans aren't at all impressed with the notion of outgoing Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) plans for a presidential campaign. His support in his home state is, as PPP put it, "surprisingly weak."

Similarly, in 2008, voters in Massachusetts had very negative attitudes about Mitt Romney's (R) bid for national office, and if I had to bet, I'd say his standing in the state he led hasn't improved.

Does this matter? It's unreasonable to think it does -- these are instances in which voters have had a chance to see these candidates up close and personal for several years. I'm aware of the familiarity-breeds-contempt dynamic, which may skew perspectives a bit, but if those who know the candidates best don't consider them presidential caliber, and in some cases, these guys might even struggle to win their own state in a national general election, the polls seem relevant.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

THAT OUGHT TO BE A FUN DINNER TABLE.... The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would actually be pretty easy at this point, were it not for the efforts of one man: Sen. John McCain (R). The anti-gay Arizonan has spearheaded the opposition to repeal, and has so far succeeded in protecting the discriminatory status quo and ensuring the mistreatment of American servicemen and women (even if that means lying about the policy).

This week, McCain's efforts picked up a new, high-profile critic -- who just happens to be his wife.

Sen. John McCain's wife Cindy appears in a new ad that harshly criticizes the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and government officials and religious leaders generally, over what she and others describe as complicity in the bullying that has led to a rash of highly-publicized suicides among gay youth. [...]

In the ad from the NOH8 campaign -- an activist group formed in response to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage -- Cindy McCain seems to be suggesting that her husband is partly responsible for the bullying that has claimed a number of gay teens' lives.

"Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future," Mrs. McCain says in the ad, which features her alongside celebrities such as Denise Richards and Gene Simmons. "They can't serve our country openly."

The same spot features Cindy McCain asking, "Our government treats the LGBT community like second class citizens -- why shouldn't they?"

What a good question. Maybe her husband could take a moment to respond.

In the larger context, we're well past the point of remembering the more honorable iterations of John McCain, which are long gone and aren't coming back. But I can't help but think there's something tragic about the conservative senator picking one last issue -- discriminating against gays and undermining military readiness during two wars -- to champion towards the end of his lengthy career.

History will not be kind. Neither, apparently, will dinner conversations at the McCain household.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

LIMBAUGH JUST CAN'T HELP HIMSELF.... There's an ongoing discussion among congressional Democrats over who'll be the House Minority Whip next year, with two current party leaders -- outgoing Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and outgoing Majority Whip James Clyburn -- both vying for the post.

With Hoyer appearing to have the edge, Rush Limbaugh, that paragon of racial equality, argued yesterday that Democrats are deliberately snubbing Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American lawmaker in American history, because of racism. He then added that Clyburn wants to stay in the leadership so he can have a car and driver -- but should, in Limbaugh's vision, instead become Nancy Pelosi's chauffeur.

"A white, racist leadership of the Democrat party trying to ace out Clyburn." [...]

"Clyburn's new position: driving Ms. Nancy," Limbaugh said. "He's not in the back of the bus, he's in the driver's seat. And she's in the back of the car being chauffeured."

Media Matters has the audio clip.

Remember, this racist hack has unrivaled influence in Republican Party politics, and pulls stunts like these in a ridiculous attempt to help the GOP. It's a standard tactic for him -- if an African-American official loses out in any Democratic context, Limbaugh wants his minions to believe it's because Dems are "racist" -- but he took this to a new level yesterday, suggesting James Clyburn become a chauffeur.

Of course, Limbaugh's history of ugly and blatant racism is so extensive, it's hard to know where to start. A while back, Adam Serwer noted Limbaugh's "record of racist commentary ... which includes having suggested that having a black president encouraged black children to beat up white children. He's also compared President Obama's agenda to 'slavery reparations,' used epithets to reference his biracial background, and compared Democrats responding to the concerns of black voters to rape."

But Limbaugh won't face any consequences for any of this, because this is just what's expected of him. His racism is tolerated by Republicans who fear him, and who need his audience to vote for them.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 11, 2010

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

* Tentative political progress in Iraq: "Iraq's lawmakers took a step toward forming a government on Thursday evening, hammering out the details of a deal struck a day earlier to end an eight-month political impasse. But only three hours into the new session of Parliament, as lawmakers began the early stages of forming a government, one of the major political blocs walked out -- a portent of the political struggles ahead and the fragility of the agreement."

* This was supposed to go better: "For President Obama, the last-minute failure to seal a trade deal with South Korea that would expand American exports of automobiles and beef is an embarrassing setback that deprives him of a foreign policy trophy and demonstrates how the midterm elections may have weakened his position abroad."

* Speaking of the Korean peninsula: "President Obama marked Veterans Day on Thursday at a U.S. military base outside this capital, where he warned North Korea that the United States 'will never waver in our commitment to the security of the Republic of Korea.'"

* Bachmann ends her bid to become House Republican Conference Chair: "That sigh of relief you heard? It might have been John A. Boehner and other Republican leaders in the House when they got the word that Representative Michele Bachmann is ending her campaign for a leadership position."

* How ridiculous has it gotten on the Hill? It's now newsworthy, and a stark change of pace, when the Republicans' Senate leader mentions in passing that he's "willing to listen" to what the White House has to say.

* Odds of passage aren't at all good, but don't be too surprised if Speaker Pelosi pushes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act during the lame-duck session.

* I admit it; I absolutely love the White House white board. More please.

* Glenn Beck's disgusting rant against George Soros this week isn't going over well with prominent Jewish leaders and Holocaust survivors.

* A Republican state rep. in Tennessee warned his colleagues this week that immigrants who enter the country illegally "go out there like rats and multiply." Classy.

* A community in Kentucky wants to improve its clean-water standards to comply with EPA regulations intended to prevent bladder cancer. Local Tea Party zealots are outraged.

* Disgraced right lobbyist/activist Ralph Reed thinks President Obama would be in better shape politically if he'd embraced a "Christ-like model of leadership" -- like Sarah Palin has.

* Have I mentioned today how maddening the Senate is? "The Senate Banking Committee will make another attempt next week to clear the path for Peter A. Diamond to take a seat on the Federal Reserve's board of governors, but Republican cooperation still seems unlikely."

* Kaplan University is in trouble.

* Best wishes to Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org, as he takes a one-year leave to deploy to Iraq, as part of Operation New Dawn. Soltz will rejoin to veterans' group upon his return.

* And on a related note, a very special thanks to those who wear, have worn, or will wear an Armed Services uniform. Happy Veterans Day.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE.... Remember, late last year, there was something briefly called the "Team of Ten" in the Senate? Health care reform was close to coming together, but there were a handful of Democrats with key concerns over specific provisions, most notably the public option. Ten members -- five from the center-right, five from the center-left -- got together to work out a deal they could all live with.

The result was a pretty good deal: the group scuttled the public option, but agreed to expand Medicare eligibility, letting Americans over the age of 55 buy into the system.

Despite all of the controversies surrounding the reform plan, the Medicare plan was wildly popular. A Washington Post/ABC News poll in mid-December showed a 63% majority approved of the Medicare buy-in idea.

So, what happened? Joe Lieberman said he'd kill the entire health care reform effort unless the Medicare buy-in provision were removed. Left with no choice, Democrats complied.

Apropos of nothing, Ezra Klein reminds us of the episode, and what the electoral considerations might have been if Lieberman were a better senator.

This [Medicare buy-in] idea had a couple of different virtues: For one, it opened an effective and cheap program up to a group of Americans who often have the most trouble finding affordable insurance. For another, the Congressional Budget Office has said this policy would improve Medicare's finances by bringing healthier, younger applicants into the risk pool. Oh, and it's wildly popular with liberals, who want to see Medicare offered as an option to more people, and since Medicare is already up and running, it could've been implemented rapidly.

But Lieberman killed it. It was never really clear why. He'd been invited to the meetings where the compromise was developed, but he'd skipped them. He'd supported the idea when he ran for president with Al Gore, and he'd reaffirmed that support three months prior to its emergence in the health-care debate during an interview with the editorial board of the Connecticut Post. But now that it was on the table, he seemed to be groping for reasons to oppose it. About the best he managed was that it was "duplicative," which was about as nonsensical a position as could be imagined. Nevertheless, he swore to filibuster the bill if the buy-in option was added. The proposal was duly removed.

I'd add one key detail Ezra didn't mention. On Dec. 15, Lieberman talked to reporters about his position on health care, and admitted he opposed the Medicare buy-in because he heard liberals say good things about it. That is how the senator was making policy decisions.

Nevertheless, Ezra's larger point -- that health care reform would have been a bigger political win if Lieberman hadn't been so petty and foolish -- is compelling: "Liberals would've been a lot happier if they'd managed to add this to the law, and maybe more of them would've turned out to vote. Seniors might've been pleased to see Medicare's finances improved, and many of the people who would've been helped by the new rule would've been, well, their children. The law could've begun delivering benefits earlier, and maybe that would've helped its popularity."

Put together, could this have helped Dems withstand the electoral "wave"? It's speculative, obviously, but it hardly strikes me as a stretch. At a minimum, I'd bet that the Affordable Care Act would be a lot more popular right now, which alone might have improved Dems' chances in the midterms.

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... The Associated Press reported today on the results of its new national poll, the results of which were fairly interesting. Support for the Republicans' tax plan, for example, was higher (53%) than I've seen in most recently polling, and support for repealing the Affordable Care Act was pretty low (39%).

But what stood out for me wasn't the data, but rather, one of the follow-up comments made by a voter who participated in the AP poll.

"I think everybody wants change," said Steven Lamb, 60, a Tennessee state government worker in Nashville who voted Republican last week despite opposing the party's stance on tax cuts and health care. "I'm tired of what's going on, and the only way to do it is to make a change."

I find this fascinating, in part because of the way in which this quote serves as a reminder that voting behavior isn't necessarily rational.

Going into the midterm elections, I lost track of how many times I saw national polls showing Democrats more popular than Republicans, but Republicans nevertheless leading Democrats at the same time. Hell, we saw another one today. Even in the exit polls gauging the attitudes of those who actually showed up on Election Day, voters conceded they liked Democrats more than they like Republicans.

This, on the day we saw a GOP "wave" that washed away the Democrats' House majority.

It's easy to find this puzzling, but look at Mr. Lamb's quote again. I don't know the man, but based on what he told the AP, he disagrees with Republicans on some of the biggest issues of the day but voted for them anyway. Why? Because he's unsatisfied with the status quo. Wouldn't voting for the party that's wrong about the major issues of the day make matters worse? Perhaps, but, again, voting isn't necessarily rational. This voter in Tennessee knows he doesn't like what he sees, and knows Democrats are in the majority, so it at least contributed to him backing the party he already disagrees with.

My point, just to be clear, isn't to pick on Steven Lamb. On the contrary, my point is that his quote tells us quite a bit. Obviously this is just one man who shared his thoughts with a pollster, but I suspect his approach was pretty common this year -- unsatisfied voters are inclined to go with the other team.

For all the talk about mandates, agendas, and policy referenda, I think "I'm tired of what's going on" summarizes pretty well what happened in 2010. If congressional Republicans see this as some sort of wholesale embrace of a far-right agenda, they're making a mistake. If Democrats see this as evidence that they should crawl into a hole and stop fighting for good ideas, they're wrong, too.

Postscript: The same poll, by the way, found that two-thirds of Americans support Senate ratification of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia (New START), with broad support across parties and ideologies. If we're being intellectually honest about this, it's probably fair to say the poll doesn't mean much, since most the country probably hasn't heard much about the treaty, but as proponents try to rally support, a strong showing in the poll can't hurt.

Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share

BUT THEY SEEMED LIKE SUCH A GOOD PAIR.... Deranged Rep.-elect Allen West (R-Fla.) made an odd announcement this week, when he said a right-wing hate-radio host, Joyce Kaufman, would serve as his chief of staff in Washington.

Part of the problem with this is that Kaufman would remain employed by her South Florida radio station, raising ethical concerns about her simultaneously serving as a top congressional aide. The other part of the problem is that Kaufman appears to be a lunatic -- spewing vile nonsense about immigrants and Muslims, and even raising the prospect of an armed insurrection against the United States government.

Today, the most outrageous staffing decision in recent memory came to an abrupt end.

Rep.-elect Allen West (R-Fla.) announced Thursday that a controversial radio host would not serve as his chief of staff after all.

West said in a statement that Joyce Kaufman, the conservative radio talk show host who he'd previously named to the top staff position in his office, would not be his chief of staff.

"It is with deep regret that this congressional office and the people of CD 22 will not have Joyce Kaufman as my chief of staff," West said in a statement. "Joyce is a good friend, and will remain loyal to South Floridians and to me. I will always seek Joyce's counsel for being a good representative of this congressional district."

It's not clear if West fired her or if Kaufman quit, but the announcement comes the day after Kaufman referred to outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi as "garbage."

Looking back, West first ran for Congress in 2008, and was widely seen as a nutjob en route to losing by about 10 points. But 2010 is the Year of the Nutjobs -- West was endorsed by extremists, raised money from extremists, palled around with extremists on the campaign trail, and won his South Florida congressional district with relative ease.

I suspect, from his perspective, hiring Kaufman wasn't an especially big deal. If he's a radical who won on a radical platform, why shouldn't he hire a chief of staff who makes a living talking up hate and violence?

If I had to guess, I'd say the House GOP leadership took West aside yesterday and explained this wouldn't do. Of course, I can't wait to see whom he hires next.

Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

COMPLAINTS FROM THOSE MAKING THE MOST MONEY.... Bloomberg News had this report this morning, but I feel like I've been seeing the similar reports for quite a while.

Investors around the world say President Barack Obama is bad for the bottom line, even though U.S. corporations are on track for the biggest earnings growth in 22 years and the stock market is headed for its best back-to- back annual gains since 2004.

That's certainly one of the classic sentences of the year. The Obama White House is bad for profits, according to those making lots of money in the Obama era.

Indeed, we learned just two weeks ago that corporate profits since Obama's inauguration that have risen faster "than during any other 18-month period since the 1920s." All told, profits have surged 62% from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department. "That is faster than any other year and a half in the Fabulous '50s, the Go-Go '60s or the booms under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton."

Obama's bad for the bottom line? Are these people serious?

Indeed, Jon Chait recently noted that when it comes to politics, Dems have the worst of both worlds: "A top-heavy economy is causing them massive grief among suffering voters, and the only people who are actually doing well are lambasting them as socialists."

It's all rather remarkable. Corporate profits are up; all of the major Wall Street indexes are up; and private-sector job growth is up.

At the exact same time, we're also told that President Obama and the Democratic agenda are somehow "anti-business." It's so drastic, in fact, that fat-cat conservatives and corporate lobbyists spent the entire year furiously raising money to elect Republicans. They were, apparently, outraged by the scourge of corporate prosperity.

What in the hell is going on here? Kevin Drum recently had a good item on the subject.

What's remarkable about all this is that Obama is, patently, not anti-business. All of the corporate complaints above, when you dig an inch below the surface, amount to lashing out at phantasms. However, although Obama isn't anti-business, it is fair to say that he's not especially business friendly. And after decades of almost literally getting their every heart's desire from Republican presidents and congresses, this has come as something as a shock to the corporate community. When Obama puts a tax break in the stimulus bill, it's aimed mainly at the middle class, not the rich. When he hires a labor secretary, it's someone who actually thinks labor laws should be enforced. When he says he wants to pass a healthcare reform bill, he actually does it. (Its impact on big business is close to zero, but no matter.) There's no evidence at all that Obama wants to punish big business, but at the same time it's quite plain that he cares much more about the middle class than he does about the rich.

And that's pretty hard for them to take. So they're apoplectic.

That strikes me as entirely right, but it's also reminder not to take the big babies seriously when they complain about their already-big profits.

Steve Benen 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

THOSE HOPING FOR COMPROMISE SHOULD PREPARE FOR DISAPPOINTMENT.... If there's one thing the vast majority of Americans seem to agree on, it's the desire to see officials in Washington compromise with one another. Take a new CBS News poll, for example.

The 2010 midterm elections marked a historic loss for President Obama's Democratic party, and although the Republicans now control the House of Representatives, the public wants them to work with the president and compromise in order to get things done.

Americans' desire to see Republicans and Democrats put the bickering aside and get some work done extends across both parties, with a substantial 72 percent of those polled by CBS News saying the GOP members of Congress should make tradeoffs in order to get things accomplished.

The only vaguely surprising part of this was how broad the support is. The poll found that a clear majority of self-identified Republicans (60%) want to see GOP lawmakers compromise with Democrats, as does a majority of self-identified Tea Partiers (55%).

In other words, the Republicans' own base expects the party to make concessions -- something party leaders have said they will refuse to do.

This is relevant to the extent that it's likely to come up quite a bit next year. Expect the White House communications shop to spend a lot of time positioning President Obama as the reasonable leader willing meet the GOP half-way, and congressional Republicans as the irresponsible partisans who reject good-faith offers and refuse to compromise.

Also note, even as the GOP seems to be riding high, public attitudes on the parties haven't changed: "Despite the gains of last week, the GOP is viewed favorably by 42 percent of those polled, while slightly more, 48 percent, view them unfavorably. Views of the Democratic Party are slightly more positive, but still mixed (46 percent favorable; 46 unfavorable)."

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The early tallies in Alaska look very good for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) -- nearly 98% of the write-in ballots opened yesterday went to her. The count, which began yesterday, will continue into next week.

* On a related note, a federal judge yesterday rejected Senate candidate Joe Miller's request for an injunction to stop the vote-counting. Miller had hoped voters' will would be ignored if Murkowski supporters spelled her name wrong.

* While Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele continues to seek support for another term, challengers continue to emerge. Connecticut GOP Chairman Chris Healy blasted Steele yesterday, saying, "I think at some point someone has to step up and say the emperor has no clothes. I'm more than willing to do that. I think I can give the RNC what it needs over the next two years. I don't have any confidence that the current management can get it done."

* In Texas, Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D) appears to have come up short in his re-election bid, but yesterday, he requested a manual recount.

* Senate Dems still can't find someone willing to serve as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Yesterday, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) announced he's not interested in the post, either.

* There are three gubernatorial races in 2011, and in one of them, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) will start off as a clear favorite for another term. A new survey from Public Policy Polling shows the incumbent with fairly strong leads over likely GOP challengers, and a 48% approval rating overall.

* In Nevada, PPP also found scandal-plagued Sen. John Ensign (R) with strong approval ratings among Republicans, and big leads over possible GOP primary challengers.

* And here's a fun data-point: 2010 was the worst cycle for incumbents in four decades, but 86% of incumbents still won.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share

THE SEARCH FOR 67 VOTES ON NEW START.... Last week, about 36 hours after Democrats had lost their House majority, President Obama spoke briefly to reporters after a cabinet meeting. The key priority he emphasized: ratifying the New START nuclear treaty. The same morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also urged the Senate to approve the treaty, sooner rather than later.

This really shouldn't be so difficult. The treaty not only advances our national security interests, it enjoys enthusiastic bipartisan support -- mostly, with the exception of Sen. Dick Lugar, from Republican elder statesmen who are no longer in government, including most of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy team.

But the question remains whether there are 67 votes for ratification in the Senate. The treaty will need eight or nine Republicans to support it (depending on when Illinois' Mark Kirk is seated), and only four GOP votes have been locked down.

The far-right, meanwhile, still hopes to derail the effort, as evidenced by an op-ed this week from John Bolton and John Yoo -- a piece Fred Kaplan described as "ridiculous," and "as slippery and dishonest" as anything he's ever read

As of yesterday, there were at least hints of optimism on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the biggest congressional champion of the START arms-control treaty between the U.S. and Russia, said Wednesday that he expects a December vote on the agreement.

Conversations among Democratic leaders and with Republican critics have markedly increased in recent days in anticipation of a vote during the lame-duck session, Kerry said during a conference call from Israel. Kerry, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee and has been leading hearings on the treaty for much of this year, has been in the Mideast for the past six days meeting with state leaders.

Kerry said on Wednesday alone he spoke with Sen. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the committee's ranking Republican, as well as Vice President Joe Biden, and also swapped calls with Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the treaty's chief critic. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also been making calls, Kerry said, and President Obama has spoken with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about getting the treaty on the chamber's agenda in December.

Kerry is anxious to show momentum building on the treaty as the Senate's lame-duck agenda starts to get crowded.

It's hard to overstate what a no-brainer this should be. We're talking about a treaty endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

French Ambassador Pierre Vimont recently said that after he and other diplomats reported back to Europe about the possibility of congressional opposition to the treaty, "People ask us, 'Have you been drinking?'"

The world just doesn't appreciate just how crazy congressional Republicans have become.

Time is of the essence -- not just because it's been almost a year since U.S. inspectors lost the ability to keep tabs on Russian nukes; thanks Republicans -- but because after the lame-duck session, passing New START in a 53-47 Senate will be even more difficult, if not impossible.

For many years, support for U.S. nuclear arms treaties has been overwhelming and bipartisan. The INF Treaty of 1988 was ratified on a 93-to-5 vote. The 1992 vote on START was 93 to 6. The SORT Treaty's vote in 2003 was a unanimous 95-to-0 vote.

Now all we need is 67. If the votes don't materialize, U.S. credibility will suffer a brutal setback, and the damage to American-Russian relations will be devastating.

As former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) recently noted, 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?"

Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

WOULD SNOWE SWITCH?.... Shortly before the midterm elections, the buzz was about Senate Republicans possibly trying to get Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to caucus with the GOP. That didn't go far. Shortly after the elections, the focus shifted to whether Joe Manchin might be willing to switch.

But this was (largely pointless) scuttlebutt about Dems willing to join the GOP. The new buzz deals with a Republican who might be recruited to switch in the other direction.

National Journal ran a very brief item the other day, noting that Democrats are "making new overtures to Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine to switch teams." The report noted that this wouldn't be the first time, "but Snowe's 2012 primary prospects make taking another run at her now seem worth it."

That was it. The whole report ran just 36 words, and included no quotes.

But the Snowe story is sparking some chatter anyway, in part because it's actually kind of plausible.

Sen. Snowe appears a smart target for Democrats. A moderate Republican and occasional Democratic companion, Snowe faces an increasingly difficult road to reelection in 2012, especially with the rising conservative tide that is now lapping at the shores of -- or perhaps flooding -- the Pine Tree State.

In a state with two moderate Republican senators and two Democratic congressman, the Republican wave last week provided passage for Tea Party-backed gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage, a boisterous and controversial small-town mayor, to become Maine's next Governor (with the campaign help of Snowe, no less). Maine Republicans also made huge gains in the state House and Senate, taking majority control of both.

This may be a bad sign for Sen. Snowe, who is now left to wonder if Republicans of her tilt aren't a dying breed, even in a state that has long been a bastion for [moderation].

It's admittedly an old poll, but a year ago, a PPP survey found a generic conservative leading Snowe in a Republican primary by 28 points -- and far-right activists have only grown more emboldened since.

The idea of Snowe losing to a GOP challenger may seem absurd, but then again, so was the idea of Mike Castle losing a primary fight to Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, a contest Snowe no doubt watched with interest.

If she sticks with the GOP, Snowe would not only risk losing in a primary, but she'd also have to spend the next year and a half moving further to the right than she's generally comfortable with. Giving up on her far-right party, in contrast, would allow her to ignore conservatives' demands and improve her odds of keeping her job.

This week, a leader of the Tea Party Patriots announced that Snowe "is definitely our next target." Dems are giving her a way out of that mess.

The response from the GOP will very likely be, "Remember Specter." The retiring Pennsylvanian expected to lose a Republican primary, jumped to the Dems, and ended up losing in a Democratic primary -- and Republicans will tell Snowe the same thing could happen to her. But I don't think it necessarily would, given that Snowe enjoys more support from Maine Dems than Specter ever enjoyed from Pennsylvania Dems.

I wouldn't expect a decision anytime soon, and for her part, Snowe hasn't so much as hinted about being open to such outreach. All we have here is a report that Dems intend to reach out.

Still, it's worth keeping an eye on.

Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

OBAMA REMINDS G20 ABOUT ECONOMIC PRIORITIES.... For the better part of 2010, much of the West has embraced austerity measures in the wake of the global financial crisis. And for the better part of 2010, President Obama has reminded allies that such efforts are a mistake.

To his credit, Obama continues to take the right message to the world.

President Barack Obama, in a clear message to other leaders at the G20, said on Thursday that the best way to control the massive U.S. budget deficit was to help the economy grow faster.

"The single most important thing we can do to reduce our debt and our deficits is to grow," Obama said in his first public response to bold early recommendations from a White House debt panel that was quickly attacked by U.S. lawmakers.

Obama has been forced to defend U.S. policies blamed for pushing up the U.S. budget deficit, while other Group of 20 partners, such as Britain and Germany have embarked on harsh spending cuts.

U.S. officials say this is exactly the wrong thing to do while a global economic recovery is still fragile, and Obama has stoutly defended a decision by the U.S. Federal Reserve to print another $600 billion to spur U.S. growth.

Good for the president. It seems like common sense -- it's a lot easier to reduce a deficit when an economy is growing and more people have jobs and can pay taxes -- but it's a point that's too often overlooked, especially in countries where austerity measures are all the rage.

What I'm especially pleased with is the administration's consistency on this. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have both been making the case to the G20 all year about the need to prioritize growth over short-term deficit reduction.

It's hard to say whether anyone's actually persuaded by the message, but I'm glad the administration is sticking to it. The White House might even try to making it more often to domestic audiences, many of which still think more jobs will be created if we take money out of the economy and make things harder on the middle class.

Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

THAT'S QUITE A 'BRAINWASHING'.... Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) still hopes to defeat Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) proposal to eliminate Senate earmarks, and as part of his efforts, the right-wing Oklahoman appeared on Fox News yesterday with a novel argument.

"The problem is the public has been brainwashed into thinking -- and a lot of these are the very liberal, uh, members of Congress -- into thinking that earmarks are somehow all bad. Well, if you quit saying 'earmark' and say 'appropriations' then I'll buy it."

Now, the obvious response is that the only folks who seem truly hysterical about eliminating earmarks are all on the right. It's a favorite issue of Tea Party activists, and nearly all of the efforts attacking earmarks have come from very conservative Republicans.

But in Inhofe's mind, perhaps Republicans have also been "brainwashed" by those rascally "liberals."

Let's back up a bit. Earmarks really weren't a major part of the discourse until John McCain's (R) presidential campaign in 2008. Barack Obama, at the time, thought this was all exaggerated. Here's a quote from the final McCain/Obama debate from October 2008, in which the future president set the record straight:

"Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

"Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem."

I hate to break it to Inhofe, but if the public's been "brainwashed" on this, it's not the left's fault.

Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share

AXELROD SIGNALS SURRENDER ON TAX POLICY.... [Updated below]

By now, everyone is no doubt familiar with the game of political chicken on tax rates. The question has been which side would blink first.

President Obama, with large Democratic majorities in both chambers, has said he would accept a permanent reduction in middle-class rates and a temporary extension of breaks for the wealthy. Republicans have ruled out all compromises, have said they will only accept everything they want, and have promised to kill middle-class tax cuts unless Dems agree to protect the rich.

The obvious call, at least to me, is for Dems to bring the White House's compromise to the floor and dare Republicans to kill the tax cuts. Yesterday, however, David Axelrod told Sam Stein and Howard Fineman that the White House is prepared to simply give in to GOP demands.

President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.

That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week's electoral defeat.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

"There are concerns," he added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point."

And that, in a nutshell, is how one loses at the negotiating table. Republicans have said they were prepared to kill the entire tax-cut package to get what they want, and Democrats have said they're not. Axelrod doesn't want to "trade away" what the administration wants, and Republicans were prepared to "trade away" everything to ensure their success.

The GOP pretended to negotiate from a position of strength and that, it appears, was enough.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it"? Well, this world features a Democratic president with a fair and popular tax-cut package, working with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, going up against a Republican minority that says it has no qualms about raising everyone's taxes.

Dems could have brought the package to the floor and dared the GOP to vote against tax cuts. I was actually looking forward to the headline: "Republicans kill tax cut compromise; higher rates kick in Jan. 1." Apparently, that's not to be.

I don't want to jump to too many conclusions here. Axelrod's position doesn't always win, and he may yet be overruled. For that matter, in this debate, positions have a way of shifting -- not too long ago, John Boehner said he'd settle for the Democratic tax plan if that's the best he could get, though he quickly changed his mind.

But as of yesterday, Axelrod's comments are what we have to go on.

I hope Axelrod also appreciates the precedent this sets: Republicans are told that if they just hold their breath long enough on key issues, the White House is willing to cave. When it comes to the debt limit and various Republican attempts to shut down the government, this isn't exactly the signal the president's team should be sending.

Update: Axelrod emailed Greg Sargent this morning, insisting, "There is not one bit of news here," and that the White House position has not changed.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer added, "The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence."

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (105)

Bookmark and Share

PENTAGON REPORT TO BOLSTER DADT REPEAL.... When Senate Republicans blocked a vote on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" several weeks ago, it's likely they were stalling for time. Conservatives, led by John McCain, said Congress couldn't possibly tackle this issue before first reading the results of the Pentagon's poll of 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, as well as 150,000 family members, which is due Dec. 1.

But if anti-gay Republicans thought the survey would help derail repeal, they apparently had it backwards.

The first leak of the survey results noted that a majority of active-duty and reserve service members would not object to serving and living alongside openly gay troops. This morning, the Washington Post has an even more detailed account of the completed-but-unreleased report.

A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report's authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.

If I had to guess, I'd say the timing of these leaks has been carefully calibrated. Senators are working behind the scenes this week on how to proceed with the military spending bill that includes DADT repeal as a provision, and there's talk united, anti-gay Republican opposition may very well scuttle the entire effort.

But it's at least possible that a handful of GOP senators will be swayed -- at least to let the Senate hold an up-or-down vote -- if they know that U.S. servicemen and women, like the rest of the population, are comfortable with ending this absurd policy.

By the time the vote comes up during the lame-duck session, the Senate will have a 58-42 split in Democrats' favor. A grand total of two Republicans, then, would have to be willing to break party ranks and agree to let the Senate vote on funding the military.

If my speculation is right, leaks on the survey's results from the Obama administration may be intended to signal to Democrats that they shouldn't cave beforehand. Here's hoping the Senate majority gets the message.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 10, 2010

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

* We're inching closer to a healthier number: "Fewer people applied for unemployment aid last week, the third drop in four weeks and evidence that the job market is showing signs of life. If the decline continues, it could signal more hiring in the near future.... The Labor Department said Wednesday that initial claims for jobless aid dropped by 24,000 to a seasonally adjusted 435,000. Many Wall Street economists expected a smaller decrease."

* With the IPO coming right up, GM's timing couldn't be better: "General Motors on Wednesday reported its largest quarterly profit in 11 years."

* G20 in Seoul: "Obama administration officials said Thursday that they were close to securing a compromise agreement to help reduce vast trade imbalances, a step that could ease conflict between the major world economies over trade, currency and monetary policies."

* Terror threat: "A package bomb from Yemen removed from a cargo plane in Britain on Oct. 29 could have exploded over the American East Coast, Scotland Yard said in a statement on Wednesday that offered the clearest sense so far of the danger averted."

* Those regular ol' text-based warnings on cigarette packs weren't cutting it. Maybe images covering half the pack will: "Federal drug regulators unveiled 36 proposed warning labels for cigarette packages on Wednesday, including some that are striking pictures of smoking's effects."

* New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) reputation for seriousness has been greatly exaggerated: "Christie says he's skeptical that humans are responsible for global warming."

* Rep.-elect Allen West's (R-Fla.) chief of staff today called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "garbage."

* Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) thinks he has a compelling legal argument to make against the Affordable Care Act. He's sorely mistaken.

* Glenn Beck's anti-Soros tirade yesterday was pretty astounding, even by Beck standards.

* Why did Oscar Grant's killer get the minimum sentence?

* It's kind of fun to see which pundits' predictions about the midterm elections were the most incorrect.

* What the Republican House has to do with raising interest rates on student loans.

* Try to contain your surprise: "Just about a year to the day that he left CNN, Lou Dobbs is returning to cable news, this time as host of his own show on News Corp.'s Fox Business Network."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

MCCONNELL IN PUBLIC VS MCCONNELL IN PRIVATE.... And here I thought George W. Bush's book wouldn't have any interesting tidbits. There were some notable revelations last week, but Justin Elliott flags another one that seems especially illuminating.

Before the 2006 midterm elections in which Republicans ultimately took a clobbering, Sen. Mitch McConnell asked President Bush in a private Oval Office meeting to pull some troops out of Iraq in order to boost the GOP's chances, Bush reports in his new memoir.

And in the same month -- September 2006 -- that McConnell made his private request, he publicly blasted Democrats for calling for a reduction of troops in Iraq, saying that their position endangered Americans.

At the time, Democrats, poised to make big gains in the midterm elections, pressed Bush to change direction on the U.S. policy in Iraq. What we didn't know was that McConnell met with Bush privately in the Oval Office, insisting that the Republican majority was in jeopardy. When asked for suggestions, according to Bush's account, McConnell said, "Mr. President, bring some troops home from Iraq."

The then-president, of course, declined, and soon after did the opposite.

Why is this important? Because while McConnell was urging the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops in private, the same McConnell was condemning Democrats publicly for the taking the exact same position. "Whether they call it 'redeployment' or 'phased withdrawal,' the effect is the same," McConnell said at the time. "We would leave Americans more vulnerable and Iraqis at the mercy of al-Qaeda, a terrorist group whose aim -- toward Iraqis and Americans -- is clear."

In other words, when playing for the cameras, McConnell believed bringing troops home was dangerous and irresponsible. When talking in private, McConnell believed bringing troops home might help Republicans win elections.

This is obviously an example of hypocrisy, but I'd suggest it's even worse than that -- McConnell didn't just say one thing in public and the opposite in private, he seems to have made a request to Bush as if the midterm elections were more important than American national security interests (as he saw them at the time).

Now, it's certainly possible that Bush's account is wrong. It's not like the former president has a track record of accuracy and honesty, and in this anecdote, Bush clearly characterizes himself as the principled, honorable leader.

But I do hope someone asks McConnell to respond, because if the story's true, it tells us quite a bit about his character, and what Democrats should expect when dealing with him behind closed doors.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

O'REILLY, MILBANK, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING OUR HEADS.... On Election Night, Fox News did what viewers expected it to do: it featured a panel of media personalities lavishing praise on Republicans. There was a token Democrat -- pollster Doug Schoen, who appears to hate Democrats and exists to bolster GOP talking points -- but none of this was especially surprising.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank described the coverage as a victory party for Republicans. Bill O'Reilly was enraged by Milbank's assessment, telling viewers, "He said there were no Democrats except for Schoen on. It was an outright lie." Milbank hadn't said that, but it's Fox News, where such details are easily ignored.

This would all be pretty meaningless, if O'Reilly had been willing to move on. But as Milbank noted in his column today, that wasn't to be.

On Thursday night, the Fox News host asked, as part of a show that would be seen by 5.5 million people: "Does sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" He then added, "That was a joke."

Hilarious! Decapitation jokes just slay me, and this one had all the more hilarity because the topic of journalist beheadings brings to mind my late friend and colleague Danny Pearl, who replaced me in the Wall Street Journal's London bureau and later was murdered in Pakistan by people who thought sharia justified it.

The next night, O'Reilly went after Milbank again. And then again the night after that.

On Thursday night, he made an eerie reference to The Post's editorial page editor. "Would you put Fred Hiatt's picture up on the screen here?" he asked. "This is the editor, Milbank's editor, Fred Hiatt. And, Fred won't do anything about Milbank lying in his column. I just want everybody in America to know what The Washington Post has come to. All right, you can take Fred's picture off. Fred, have a nice weekend, buddy."

Shortly after this, O'Reilly proposed to his fellow Fox News host, Megyn Kelly, a way to handle their disagreement with me: "I think you and I should go and beat him up."

In my heart of hearts, I find it very hard to believe that O'Reilly would commit an act of violence against Milbank or his editor. I also rather doubt O'Reilly intends for his viewers to go out and become anti-media vigilantes, attacking journalists in the streets.

But there have been some awful incidents lately of politically-motivated violence. The more media professionals make an effort to lower the temperate a bit, the better off we'll be.

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

THE FISCAL COMMISSION APPEARS TO HAVE WASTED ITS TIME.... Following up on an earlier item, the White House's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" has released a plan from its chairmen on how to balance the budget. At its core, that's pretty much all it is -- a report from former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson (R) on their vision for fiscal reform.

But those worried that the fiscal commission might actually present a plan that does real damage can relax. No one could possibly vote for any of this. Megan Carpentier's summary was a good one:

Their recommendations are more or less a list of the third-rail issues of American politics, including cuts in the number of federal workers; increasing the costs of participating in veterans and military health care systems; increasing the age of Social Security eligibility; and major cuts in defense and foreign policy spending. They also encompass a range of tax system reforms that have been floated by many in Washington for years to little effect, including reducing tax rates by eliminating many beloved credits and deductions.

The top-line changes are likely to get the most attention, including Medicare cuts and undermining Social Security.

But some of the other provisions in the chairmen's plan are just head-shaking recommendations, pointing to things that simply won't happen. Some of my favorites -- and by "favorites," I mean ideas that I found astounding, not ideas I actually approve of -- include the elimination of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, the elimination of subsidized student loans, new costs imposed on veterans for their health care, cutting schools on military bases, and new entrance fees at the Smithsonian.

Sorry, you freeloading school kids.

And to think, 14 out of 18 commission members weren't ready to endorse this. Imagine that.

Also keep in mind, the cuts could be less severe in the Simpson/Bowles model if only they cut taxes less. But this plan calls for dropping the top marginal rate to just 23%. Under Clinton, it was 39.6%. Under George W. Bush, it was 35%.

I've seen some suggestions that the report, such as it is, should be considered "controversial." But that's not quite right. It's better to call this what it is: hopelessly irrelevant.

Indeed, I suspect in a couple of months, this commission will have been almost entirely forgotten, mentioned only as a point of ridicule for what not to do.

Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Last night, Fox News' Bret Baier noted that some Republican leaders would prefer "a truce on social issues" for awhile, and asked Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) what he thought of such talk. He replied:

"Well, you can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative. A large part of the expansive government is to make up for a dysfunctional society because our culture's falling apart. The family's falling apart."

I've never really understood how DeMint's mind works, but this sentiment seems especially odd. Fiscal conservatives (a label that appears to have lost all meaning) must be social conservatives?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here. There is a school of thought, embraced by some conservatives, that says a culture's moral failings contribute to a certain societal chaos, which in turn creates a need for state intervention. I don't know DeMint personally, but if I had to guess, this is probably what he's referring to -- in his mind, stronger families would mean a stronger society which would mean more stability and less government.

Taking that to the extreme, you can't, in DeMint's mind, be fiscally conservative and socially progressive, since the attitudes of social libertines end up being so darn expensive.

The problem, of course, is that this entire philosophy is pretty bizarre precisely because it's predicated on silly assumptions -- one has to seriously believe that reproductive rights and gay rights, for example, create a "dysfunctional society" that leads to a massive bureaucracy. The real world doesn't actually work this way. Is DeMint seriously prepared to explain why, if a same-sex couple wants to get married -- adding to a community, advancing stability -- that this somehow leads to "big government"?

For that matter, if DeMint were serious about strengthening families, he could use his power to advance all kinds of pro-family policies -- health care, better schools, child care, expanded worker protections/benefits, etc. -- all of which he happens to reject.

Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

FISCAL COMMISSION WRAPS UP WORK EARLY.... The White House's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" -- the 18-member panel tasked with deficit-reduction planning -- wasn't scheduled to report on its work for several more weeks. By all accounts it's been a struggle, with the goal of producing a "consensus" report enjoying the support of at least 14 members.

The fact that the commission appears to have wrapped up its work, with a report from its chairs due today, suggests the panel did not reach its goals.

A draft proposal to be released Wednesday by the chairmen of President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the federal debt calls for deep cuts in domestic and military spending starting in 2012, and an overhaul of the tax code to raise revenue. Those changes and others would erase nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020, the proposal says.

The plan would reduce Social Security benefits to most future retirees -- low-income people would get a higher benefit -- and it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes to ensure Social Security's solvency for at least the next 75 years.

But the plan would not count any savings from Social Security toward meeting the overall deficit-reduction goal set by Mr. Obama, reflecting the chairmen's sensitivity to liberal critics who have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its own sake, not to balance the nation's books.

The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks -- including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments -- so that income tax rates could be reduced across the board. Under the plan, individual income tax rates would decline to as low as 8 percent on the lowest income bracket (now 10 percent) and to 23 percent on the highest bracket (now 35 percent). The corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, would also be reduced, to as low as 26 percent.

That's all very interesting, I suppose, though the political prospects of any of this are, at best, highly dubious.

But it's worth emphasizing a rather important detail: these recommendations are not the result of a commission consensus. On the contrary, they're reportedly included in a draft published by the commission's chairmen -- former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, and former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson (R).

In other words, Simpson and Bowles have all kinds of ideas about raising the retirement age and cutting Medicare benefits, but that's not the collective judgment of the commission they've led.

At this point, the two chairs still hope to get the support of 14 of the 18 members, but that appears to be a stretch, and it's likely members won't even vote at all. One also assumes the chairs would also love the White House to embrace their document, but I'm guessing that's unlikely, too.

Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE NEWS AND THE AGENDA.... If you've listened at all to congressional Republicans recently, you've no doubt heard them talk about one of their top priorities: gut the Affordable Care Act, and take away access to coverage for tens of millions of Americans.

The timing of this absurd push could be better.

Nearly 59 million Americans went without health insurance coverage for at least part of 2010, many of them with conditions or diseases that needed treatment, federal health officials said on Tuesday.

They said 4 million more Americans went without insurance in the first part of 2010 than during the same time in 2008.

"Both adults and kids lost private coverage over the past decade," Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a news briefing.

It's against this backdrop that the entirety of the Republican Party wants to destroy the reform laws and go back to the broken system that produced these tragic results.

Indeed, let's also not forget that as far as congressional Republicans are concerned, the number of uninsured Americans is largely irrelevant. When the House GOP unveiled their alternative reform package -- the one that would presumably "replace" the Affordable Care Act, after it's been "repealed" -- it ignored the coverage crisis almost entirely. Getting insurance to those who don't or can't have it simply wasn't a priority.

But looking ahead to 2011, these same Republicans not only want to ignore the plight of families with no insurance, they quite deliberately hope to make the problem worse -- even after hearing from the CDC about the nearly 59 million Americans went without health insurance coverage for at least part of 2010.

It's tempting to think a report like this would make the repeal crusade look equally callous and ridiculous. Regrettably, that's not the case.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* As Alaska officials begin counting write-in votes in the U.S. Senate race, Republican Joe Miller has filed a lawsuit, insisting that bad spellers' ballots be rejected. Officials plan to use their discretion on the spelling of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R) name, but Miller wants the will of the voters to be ignored, if those voters flubbed "Murkowski."

* On a related note, the recount in Minnesota's gubernatorial race is getting underway.

* There is "an effort underway" among RNC members to find a credible alternative to Michael Steele, who appears intent on seeking another term next year. Wisconsin GOP chief Reince Priebus appears to be a person of interest.

* Did Florida Gov.-elect Rick Scott (R) really try to pay some of his campaign workers with American Express gift cards, rather than with money? Actually, yes.

* As the vote counting in California's 11th congressional district continues, incumbent Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) has seen his lead grow, not shrink. A final tally may come by the end of the week, but Republican challenger David Harmer is already talking about a recount.

* A new poll out of Nebraska shows incumbent Sen. Ben Nelson (D) trailing state Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) by 15 points in a hypothetical 2012 match-up. For what it's worth, Nelson does enjoy a 50% approval rating in his home state.

* Speaking 2012, appointed Sen. George LeMieux (R) is making no secret of his intentions to take on Sen. Ben Bill Nelson (D) in Florida in two years.

* And in one more bit of 2012 news, is Sen. Jim Webb (D) planning to seek re-election in Virginia? Apparently, he hasn't decided. With former Sen. George Allen (R) planning a comeback, a Webb retirement would likely make this a GOP pick-up.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

TUCKER CARLSON, JOKESTER.... Over the summer, Tucker Carlson and his online enterprise boasted about having purchased the keitholbermann.com domain, which they intended to use for humor.

Carlson, it appears, is quite the jokester.

So it was interesting to see that Olbermann allegedly sent some angry emails to the Philadelphia Daily News' Stu Bykofsky using the email address keith@keitholbermann.com.

Phawker.com, which published the exchange, claimed it was "guaranteed 100% for real."And Bykofsky later confirmed to media industry watcher Jim Romenesko that he was writing to keith@keitholbermann.com, which he believed to be Olbermann.

Although emails were indeed sent back and forth, it wasn't Olbermann on the other end.

No, that was Tucker Carlson, pretending to be Olbermann, and leaving Bykofsky with the impression he was having a heated exchange with Olbermann.

Asked for an explanation, Carlson said. "Could you resist? It was just too funny. The flesh is weak."

Perhaps I'm expecting too much here, but I have a hard time imagining how Carlson justifies this. A media professional sending a series of emails to another media professional, all while pretending to be a different media professional? All because it's "too funny"?

Zaid Jilani added, "Carlson's juvenile attacks do not reflect well on The Daily Caller. At the time of the Caller's launch, Carlson wrote that it is 'primarily a news site. We see our core job as straightforward: Find out what's happening and tell you about it. We plan to be accurate, both in the facts we assert and in the conclusions we imply. If we're not, tell us. We'll fix it immediately.' One has to wonder how Carlson plans to fix his latest act of deception."

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share

TARGETING PROGRAMS THAT DON'T EXIST (BUT SHOULD).... For those hoping for even a modicum of competence from the upcoming House Republican majority, this does not bode well.

Note to the incoming Republican majority in the House: Eliminating government programs that do not exist does not save money.

Of the few specific cuts that Congressional Republicans have proposed in their promised assault on annual budget deficits, one of the biggest by far would save $25 billion over 10 years, they claim, by ending an emergency welfare fund.

The Republican Study Committee, which includes more than 100 of the most conservative House Republicans, promoted the idea in a statement this week, saying, "With the national debt quickly approaching $14 trillion, Washington needs to get serious about cutting spending."

Well, seriously, the fund expired Sept. 30.

Obviously, there's plenty of surface-level stupidity to marvel at here. The Republican Study Committee thinks it can save $25 billion by eliminating a program that doesn't exist. One would like to think these guys would put a little effort into their work, especially given the fact that spending cuts are presumably the issue they care about most.

But the layers of stupidity go much further. Note, for example, that the Republican Study Committee believes it can get $25 billion in savings from a program that cost $2.5 billion, which doesn't make any sense. Also note, RSC Chairman Tom Price (Ga.) called for eliminating the program as part of "welfare reform," which is completely crazy, given that the program is welfare reform.

And then there's the more fundamental question: why are right-wing congressional Republicans so anxious to kill effective jobs programs?

At issue here is something called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund, which should have been one of the most popular programs in Congress. A key component of the Recovery Act, the fund subsidized jobs with private companies, nonprofits, and government agencies, and single-handedly put more than 240,000 unemployed people back to work in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

Governors, including Mississippi's Haley Barbour (R), have sung its praises, and urged its extension. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) called it an "important social safety net program." In July, CNN called the TANF Emergency Fund "a stimulus program even a Republican can love."

Except, Republicans didn't love it. After the House passed an extension, the Senate tried but came up short. Three times, Senate Democrats tried to keep the program going, and three times, the Senate GOP refused.

With unemployment near 10%, Republicans killed one of the most successful and cost-effective jobs programs in the country. And this week, because they don't believe in doing their homework, Republicans tried to kill it again, having forgotten that it's already dead.

Last week, much of the American electorate signaled its belief that GOP officials can be trusted to know what they're doing. That trust is badly misplaced.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

ALLEN WEST AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF.... In the new year, Florida's Allen West (R), elected to Congress last week, will instantly become one of the most deranged individuals on Capitol Hill, easily joining the ranks of Michele Bachmann, Steve King, and Louis Gohmert. If there were any doubts about this, West settled them when he hired his new chief of staff.

First, a little background. West first gained notoriety during his military service in Iraq, when he was forced to retire from the Army for engaging in abusive interrogation techniques. More recently, he's incorporated violent rhetoric into his campaign speeches, and made demonstrably ridiculous claims about his own background. Last month, we learned about West's ties to a violent gang of criminals, which the Justice Department believes is involved in drug running, arson, prostitution, robbery, and murder. Last week, he nevertheless won by eight points.

This week, Allen began hiring a team. For his chief of staff, the congressman-elect chose a right-wing talk-radio host -- whose show he's been on more than 100 times -- named Joyce Kaufman.

There are two angles to this to consider. The first is that Kaufman spews a lot of hate.

She said at a rally, with West standing by, "Calling illegal immigrants 'undocumented workers' is like calling a drug dealer a pharmacist without a license." She was furious that children of illegal immigrants were educated in public schools and received health care at emergency rooms. "There are people who want to change your way of life, and some of them may be your gardeners," she said.

Her anger is not limited to illegal immigrants. "There's no way I'm going to live in a country that's been radically Muslim-ized … and I'm not afraid to say it," she said at a protest in Jupiter. She also said at the protest that the United States was "this close" to moving towards "fascistic and tyrannical rule."

That's really just scratching the surface. The congressman-elect's chief of staff has said Jewish people who voted for President Obama "don't embrace being Jews anymore." On illegal immigration, Kaufman has also said, "If you commit a crime while you're here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it."

Perhaps most strikingly, Kaufman delivered a speech this year raising the prospect of an armed insurrection against the United States government: "[I]f ballots don't work, bullets will."

And then there's the ethical problem of West hiring a radio personality who isn't quitting her job.

George Zornick explained yesterday:

WFTL said in a statement that Kaufman will continue to work for the station but not as a host: she has been "retained as our Washington correspondent, with details on her new exciting schedule to be announced soon."

Carol Dixon, counsel for the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, told ThinkProgress that she had not heard of Kaufman's situation in particular, but said that generally this setup could be "potentially problematic."

"There may be potential confidentiality issues -- some of the issues she's reporting on may be gained by virtue of her House status. At a staff level it seems problematic," Dixon said. The committee's rules also say Kaufman must earn a fair market salary from WFTL, and refrain from using any office equipment for her radio duties.


Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

A TELLING CHOICE.... House Republicans will soon have to decide who'll be the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, replacing Rep. Henry Waxman (D), as the chamber changes party hands. This may not sound especially interesting, but consider who's in the running for the post.

The current ranking member is ExxonMobil's Texas' Joe Barton (R), best known as the pro-pollution congressman who apologized to BP after it dumped oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Barton would be in line for the chairmanship, though caucus term limits suggest he's ineligible. Barton is seeking a waiver so he can get the gavel.

But if Republicans decline his request, Rep. John Shimkus (R) wants the gig. If you've forgotten the name, Andrew Restuccia reminds us:

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who has said he wants to take over as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has consistently denied the broad scientific consensus behind climate change, often citing the Bible or grossly oversimplifying biology to back up his position.

Restuccia offers a greatest-hits package of Shimkus quotes, and re-reading them, it's hard to believe Shimkus is even a member of Congress, worse yet in a position to oversee the House committee dealing with energy policy.

We are, after all, talking about a congressman who doesn't want to reduce carbon emissions, because it would be "taking away plant food." Shimkus has also cited the Book of Genesis as a possible response to global warming -- his God will protect life on earth, so we have nothing to worry about.

He also once said, "Today we have 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I believe in the days of the dinosaurs, where we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon."

That Shimkus would even be considered to lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee tells us quite a bit about the intellectual prowess of congressional Republicans in the 21st century.

Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

THE ODD MISJUDGMENTS OF INFLATION HAWKS.... Don't just roll your eyes and assume I'm mocking Sarah Palin's dimwittedness again for its entertainment value. This one's actually pretty important.

As the U.S. readies to join the other Group of 20 nations in Seoul, South Korea, [the Federal Reserve's] plan to pump money into the banking system to jump-start the recovery is finding enemies both foreign and domestic -- from finance officials in Germany and China to Sarah Palin.

Former vice presidential candidate and Tea Party favorite Palin weighed in on the debate late Monday over whether the plan, known as quantitative easing, would help boost the U.S. economy, calling on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to "cease and desist."

"When Germany, a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of inflation, warns us to think again, maybe it's time for Chairman Bernanke to cease and desist," Palin said in a speech in Phoenix.

The international dynamic is odd enough. Sarah Palin is taking China's side over that of U.S. officials? For that matter, it's amusing, in a way, for the former half-term governor to rely on Germany to bolster her case -- since when does the far-right care what Europe thinks? Isn't the conservative line that Americans should only reference Europe as an example of what to ignore?

More substantively, though, Palin's principal concern doesn't appear to make sense.

"All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher."

I'm well aware of the fact that Sarah Palin is deeply confused about, well, pretty much everything, but it's important Americans realize how painfully backwards the concerns from "inflation hawks" really are.

Indeed, David Leonhardt explained the other day that those worried about inflation over the last year or so have been consistently, tragically wrong. At the precise time the Fed should have been doing more, it did less, due entirely to fears about inflation that didn't exist.

So, when Palin insists inflation has been a real problem "over the past year or so," the people who tell her what words to say haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about: "[F]ar from 'rising significantly,' overall prices have moved at historically low rates in recent months -- just 1.1 percent in the past year. The Wall Street Journal's Sudeep Reddy dug deeper into the numbers and found there was even less evidence to back up Palin's specific groceries claim -- inflation for food and beverages was less than .6 percent for the first nine months of the year. That's the slowest rate of price increases for food and drinks since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1968."

The real fear right now is over deflation. Palin may not know what words like these mean, but that's the opposite of inflation.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

SENATE REPUBLICANS LAUNCH INTRA-PARTY FIGHT OVER EARMARKS.... In the week since the midterm elections, we've seen a few interesting disputes break out among congressional Republicans, who, as a rule, tend to be pretty united. There's been some frustrated finger-pointing, for example, over Senate seats the GOP likely would have won had they nominated less-unhinged candidates.

But a GOP fight over earmarks appears to be bigger, more divisive, and arguably even more personal.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

In a series of one-on-one conversations with incoming and sitting senators, McConnell is encouraging his colleagues to keep an open mind and not to automatically side with DeMint, whose plan calls on Senate Republicans to unilaterally give up earmarks in the 112th Congress, according to several people familiar with the talks.

DeMint's proposal, which Senate Republicans are expected to formally consider next week, has already picked up support from some high-profile party leaders, including NRSC Chairman John Cornyn, and several incoming members (Toomey, Rubio, Paul, Lee, Johnson, and Ayotte).

The problem for other members, of course, is that they actually like earmarks. McConnell, in particular, uses them all the time, and doesn't want to have to give them up. The same goes for other notable caucus members like Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

This contingent even has a bomb-thrower, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who's ready to make this personal.

Inhofe concedes that DeMint is likely to get the moratorium passed by the GOP conference, but says he is prepared to give floor speeches that single out DeMint and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another longtime earmark opponent, for hypocrisy. [...]

"I know politically it's the dumbest thing for me to say I'm for earmarks, but it would cede authority to President Obama," Inhofe said. "But McCain and DeMint are not being honest about how they define them."

For what it's worth, McConnell's faction, which appears likely to lose, has the much stronger case. Even if DeMint's measure passes, it wouldn't actually cut any spending. It also wouldn't stop the Democratic majority from continuing the practice, and forcing GOP senators to vote against popular appropriations bills that happen to include earmarks.

Best of all, DeMint's moratorium, if approved, wouldn't have the force of law and couldn't be formally enforced -- so Republicans could just go ahead and request earmarks anyway.

Dems, meanwhile, aren't exactly broken up about watching Republicans fight. Next week will be the first time the Senate is back in session since the midterms, and Dems are actually likely to be pleased that the first order of business will be an angry, intra-party dispute within the GOP caucus.

The vote, by the way, will be by secret ballot. Don't be too surprised if some of the Republicans who say they're with DeMint on this actually vote against him.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 9, 2010

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

* John Durham, the special prosecutor in this case, has a good reputation, but this is not what I expected: "A federal prosecutor will not bring criminal charges against any of the Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in destroying videotapes depicting the brutal interrogation of Al Qaeda detainees, the Justice Department said on Tuesday.... Jose A. Rodriguez, the former head of the agency's clandestine service, ordered his staff in November 2005 to destroy tapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri."

* Middle East peace process: "President Obama expressed concern Tuesday over the flagging Middle East peace process he helped inaugurate two months ago, as Israel announced plans for new building on land that Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state. Asked at a news conference here about the Israeli government's new plans to build 1,300 apartments in East Jerusalem, Obama said: 'This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.'"

* I really hope there's a good explanation for this: "A mysterious missile launch off the southern California coast was caught by CBS affiliate KCBS's cameras Monday night, and officials are staying tight-lipped over the nature of the projectile."

* This seems at least somewhat encouraging: "The nation's economic stress fell in September to a 16-month low, thanks to more hiring in New England, fewer foreclosures in the mid-Atlantic and declining bankruptcy filings in the Southeast, according to The Associated Press' monthly analysis of conditions around the country." (thanks to T.K. for the tip)

* I don't blame her for trying: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is trying to negotiate an end to the race between Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) for Minority Whip, a senior Democratic aide confirmed Tuesday."

* Andy Sabl does a very effective job of taking the organization Third Way to task, and reminds us of the group's president's interesting past.

* Oliver Willis knows how to shut down a stupid argument on Twitter.

* I'm glad to see the "What the F*#k has Obama Done So Far" website gain widespread fame so quickly.

* America's for-profit colleges have a new strategy: Republican alliances.

* The biggest problem with Matt Lauer's prime-time interview with George W. Bush? No one watched. NBC preempted "Chuck" for this?

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

A VERY EFFECTIVE MINORITY LEADER.... Yesterday, the New York Times editorial board argued that outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) skill-set doesn't match up well with the responsibilities of a House Minority Leader. The piece neglected to mention that Pelosi already served -- and thrived -- in the exact same position before becoming Speaker.

Today, the Washington Monthly is featuring a gem from our archives: an Amy Sullivan piece from May 2006 on the often-brilliant strategies employed by then-Minority Leader Pelosi.

In the winter of 2005, Bush unveiled his Social Security privatization plan, the domestic centerpiece of his second term. The president invested a tremendous amount of personal political capital in the effort, featuring it in his 2005 State of the Union address and holding carefully choreographed town meetings to simulate public support for the idea.

Most of the press corps expected the debate to be a painful defeat for Democrats. Not only were moderates predicted to jump ship and join with Republicans to support the president's plan, but Social Security -- one of the foundational blocks of the New Deal social compact -- would be irrevocably changed. But then a funny thing happened. Reid and Pelosi managed to keep the members of their caucuses united in opposition. Day after day they launched coordinated attacks on Bush's "risky" proposal. Without a single Democrat willing to sign on and give a bipartisanship veneer of credibility, the private accounts plan slowly came to be seen by voters for what it was: another piece of GOP flimflam.

As the privatization ship began sinking, Republicans challenged Democrats to develop their own plan, and when none was forthcoming, pundits whacked the minority party for being without ideas. But not putting forth a plan was the plan. It meant that once the bottom fell out on public support for Bush's effort -- which it did by early summer -- Democrats couldn't be pressured to work with Republicans to form a compromise proposal. It was a brilliant tactical maneuver that resulted in a defeat at least as decisive as the Republicans' successful effort to kill Clinton's health-care plan.

Also note the great anecdote in the piece about Pelosi helping orchestrate then- Rep. Jack Murtha's (D-Pa.) announcement calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. She took heat in the press, but behind the scenes, Pelosi executed a careful plan very well.

All of this is relevant now, of course, as Pelosi makes the transition, Rayburn-style, from Speaker back to Minority Leader. But the point that hasn't been gotten much play this week is that Pelosi really excelled in this job, and positioned her caucus for an unlikely majority in 2006.

I'll gladly concede that Pelosi is not the party's most effective talk-show guest or public speaker. There's something to be said, however, for an accomplished lawmaker with tremendous leadership skills, behind-the-scenes know-how, and a tactical understanding of how best to use the process.

Pelosi, in other words, was a Minority Leader who knew what she was doing. I know that's the kind of quality that seems unimportant lately, but here's hoping the Democratic caucus doesn't forget it.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH, THE FAMOUS, AND THE NEW JERSEY GOVERNORS.... New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), a media darling and favorite of many Republican activists, has a penchant for complaining about wasteful government spending and public employees who abuse the system and fail to respect the taxpayers footing the bills.

In retrospect, Christie probably should have picked a different issue to focus on.

When he was a top federal prosecutor, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey routinely billed taxpayers for hotel stays whose cost exceeded government guidelines, according to a report the Justice Department released on Monday.

The report, by the department's inspector general, examined travel expenses for all 208 people who served as a United States attorney from 2007 to 2009. It spoke of five who "exhibited a noteworthy pattern of exceeding the government rate and whose travel documentation provided insufficient, inaccurate or no justification for the higher lodging rates."

While the report did not identify any prosecutors by name, the travel patterns of an official called "U.S. Attorney C" -- the one "who most often exceeded the government rate without adequate justification" in terms of percentage of travel -- match records about Mr. Christie that were released in the 2009 campaign for governor by his Democratic opponent, the incumbent, Jon S. Corzine.

There were, to be sure, other officials who abused the system, but Christie appears to have been the worst. In Boston, for example, he stayed at a $449-per-night. In D.C., he stayed at the $475-per-night Four Seasons. For both cities, the rate is more than double the government standard, but Christie nevertheless had taxpayers pick up the tab.

It wasn't just lodging. In Boston, Christie could have taken a cab for the four miles between his luxurious hotel and the airport, but he instead took a $236 car service. In London, Christie's drive to the airport cost $562. He had us pay for all of this, too.

It also doesn't help that Christie, accused of this pattern of wasteful spending, "declined to speak with the inspector general's investigators."

I guess this is what passes for "fiscal conservatism" in Republican politics nowadays?

All of this, by the way, occurred towards the end of the Bush administration. The Obama administration has since implemented stricter limitations on U.S. Attorney travel, in the hopes of preventing Christie-style abuses.

Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

THE THREATDOWN IS SUPPOSED TO BE SATIRE.... If you've seen "The Colbert Report," you're probably aware of the "Threatdown" segment. Stephen Colbert, in a satirical attempt to scare viewers about various dangers, invariably singles out bears as the biggest threat facing America. Indeed, he tends to refer to them as "godless killing machines."

Of course, Colbert is kidding (at least, I think he is; maybe he really is afraid of bears). When Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association talks about bears, he's serious.

My friend Kyle at Right Wing Watch noted that Fischer, easily one of the nation's looniest religious right leaders, didn't just complain about some recent bear attacks, but also what he thinks the attacks represent. As Fischer put it:

"If it's a choice between grizzlies and humans, the grizzlies have to go. And it's time. [...]

"God makes it clear in Scripture that deaths of people and livestock at the hands of savage beasts is a sign that the land is under a curse. The tragic thing here is that we are bringing this curse upon ourselves."

What set Fischer off, apparently, was this LA Times piece on the unusually large number of grizzly attacks in the area around Yellowstone this year. Obviously, the incidents are awful.

But we've entered a pretty nutty territory once folks start looking at bears as evidence of America being "under a curse."

Also keep in mind, as bizarre as Fischer is, he actually enjoys some influence in modern conservatism. Jillian Rayfield noted, "Fischer is a favorite of social conservative Republicans, and even spoke at the Values Voter summit this fall alongside Mitt Romney, Jim DeMint, and other big-name Republicans."

I'm trying to imagine a liberal activist quite as hysterical as Bryan Fischer, and what kind of influence such an activist might have with the Democratic mainstream. No one on the left seems comparable, but even if there were someone similar, he/she certainly wouldn't be palling around with Dem leaders.

Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

THE INEXPLICABLE FIGHT OVER DADT.... In theory, this should be one of the easiest political victories of the year for Democrats. The existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a disaster, denying servicemen and women of basic decency while undermining military readiness.

The public wants it repealed. So does the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and two of his recent predecessors. A majority of the House already approved repeal, and a majority of the Senate supports the same move. And while we're at it, let's also not forget that a repeal provision is in a military funding bill that has to pass very soon.

And yet, the consensus seems to be that none of this will matter, and that Senate Republicans will manage to keep the ineffective status quo in place this year -- and for the foreseeable future.

At issue is the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate, and whether the DADT provision should be stripped from the bill to get Republicans to lift their filibuster. Yesterday, the White House once again made clear that it "opposes any effort to strip 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' from the National Defense Authorization Act." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had said he'd respect the military's wishes on this, is now willing to kill funding for the troops unless the DADT measure is removed.

Matt Yglesias had a very smart take on this today.

Just as a pure political spectacle here, this is a thing to behold. Filibustering defense appropriations bills is politically risky. And to do it in order to support a hugely unpopular position on a related issue is a giant risk. It'd be one thing if 60% of the public was on the Republicans' side about DADT. But it's not. Instead this is a 70-30 issue that cuts against them.

But not only are they getting away with the filibuster, they're turning their obstruction into a political winner by forcing the progressive community into circular firing squad mode. I try really hard to think of politics in terms of the substance of things rather than the quality of the performances, but from a sports fan type perspective you really have to admit that Mitch McConnell has delivered a gutsy virtuoso performance as a legislative leader. It takes a real kind of vision to recognize that relentless obstruction even of overwhelmingly popular progressive ideas can be turned into a political winner by creating fractures in the other side's coalition.

It's one thing to push Dems to take advantage of the opportunity, but much of the recent commentary I've seen has come from opponents of DADT blasting Democrats who are on the correct side of this, but who've failed to get Republicans on board.*

For those keeping score, this will be the third attempt this year in the Senate. In both previous instances, every Democrat supported getting rid of DADT, and every Republican blocked a vote. Naturally, then, supporters of ending the existing policy are lashing out at Democrats because of Republican obstructionism.

Richard Socarides, who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues, suggested to the New York Times that the Obama White House needs to "deliver on this," though he didn't mention how the president is supposed to convince Republicans to vote the way he wants them to.

As for the next step, we effectively have a game of chicken. Dems are telling Republicans, "You need to let us vote or we can't fund the military." Republicans are telling Dems, "You better scrap the DADT provision, or we won't let you fund the military." McCain and other anti-gay senators are expecting Dems to blink first, since Democrats are the "responsible" ones who wouldn't screw over the troops.

With that in mind, sensible activists shouldn't just lean on Dems to do the right thing, they should also try to find a Republican vote or two to help make this effort successful.

* edited for clarity

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

IF TEXAS WITHDREW FROM MEDICAID.... Despite assertions that Texas' conservative governance is a model for the nation, the state government is facing a drastic budget mess. After more than a decade of conservatism, Texas suddenly finds itself in a $25 billion hole.

To address the shortfall, a growing number of Texas Republicans are interested in simply withdrawing from the Medicaid program altogether. Suzy Khimm explains why that's a very bad idea.

The underlying rationale is that sacrificing the health coverage of poor people would be a worthwhile move if it solves the state's budget crisis. If you're a purist in opposing the welfare state -- even at significant human cost to the most vulnerable -- it's a logical argument to make. But even if we all agree the goal is fiscal solvency, there's also a chance that gutting Medicaid could end up backfiring.

The uninsured poor have already been resorting to hospital emergency rooms for care, and hospitals, in turn, have relied on state governments to cover the costs. If Medicaid coverage were pared back, the hospital ER would likely become the de facto safety net: The number of uninsured ER visits would invariably rise, and the state government would end up paying the price anyway. Texas's own comptroller, Susan Combs, has admitted as much: In a 2005 paper, she proposes that the state's Medicaid should be slashed and hospital reimbursements upped instead. But ER visits are extremely expensive, and they won't serve as a particular cost-effective solution to eliminating insurance, which at least gives patients other options for care.

Khimm added that the "uninsured poor will continue to get sick," even if Texas eliminates Medicaid coverage altogether. And as they do, and they seek care in emergency rooms, the costs for the state will still be enormous (arguably even higher than the status quo they're inclined to abandon).

This is awful, of course, but it's worth remembering that it's not especially surprising -- Republicans have made no secret of their love of emergency rooms as an alternative to a system of Americans with health insurance.

As for Texas, which already has the highest rate of uninsured residents in the country, dropping out of Medicaid would take the total from 26% of the state to 40% of the state.

I guess "compassionate conservatism" didn't last?

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

DEMS STILL HAVE BIG MAJORITIES FOR THE LAME-DUCK SESSION.... President Obama has already offered congressional Republicans a deal on taxes that gives them nearly everything they want: a permanent reduction in rates for the middle class, and a temporary extension of Bush-era rates for the wealthy. The Hill reports the offer, and the very idea of separating tax deals for the rich and everyone else, appears to be "dead."

The Obama administration's hopes of reaching a tax deal with Republicans that would decouple rates on the rich from the middle class appear dead.

House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) threw cold water on the proposed plan, which would temporarily extend tax cuts for the wealthy while permanently extending tax cuts for the middle class. "Taxes shouldn't be going up on anybody right now," Cantor said.

Cantor's comments Monday evening on Fox News follow similar remarks from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the incoming senior Republican on the Senate's tax-writing committee. While Hatch expressed an open mind to extending tax cuts past the 2012 election rather than permanently extending the rates, he also ruled out the decoupling proposal.

Remember a couple of months ago, when congressional Democrats had the option of dealing with this before adjournment? When they could have passed a middle-class tax-cut package before Election Day? When polls showed the public supporting the Democratic position over the GOP's? When Dems decided it'd be better to wait?

I couldn't figure out what they were thinking at the time. Now, the decision looks even worse.

But reading the report in The Hill, it occurred to me that Cantor and other Republicans are barking orders, declaring proposals dead, as if they were in the majority. So perhaps now would be a good time to point a minor detail: Bush-era tax rates expire at the end of the year, and between now and then, there's a large Democratic majority in both chambers.

Cantor is refusing to consider the White House's compromise offer? Fine. Given that Cantor is still in the minority, it's not really up to him to decide -- at least not until next year.

It seems to me Democrats can get out of their defensive crouch and tell the GOP what's going to happen -- there will be a vote on a tax-cut package, and it will feature a permanent cut in middle-class tax rates, and a temporary extension of rates for the wealthy. They can either vote for it or against it. If Senate Republicans refuse to allow the chamber to consider the package, they will have killed the only opportunity available to keep Bush-era tax rates alive, and will be responsible for bringing back Clinton-era rates for everyone.

Much of the GOP's posturing is about playing for the cameras -- if they refuse to compromise and Dems cave, Republicans get what they want. If they refuse to compromise and all of the tax rates expire on schedule, Republicans get the talking point they want ("Dems raised taxes").

With that in mind, Dems aren't playing the game well. After multiple efforts at offering concessions, there's no reason Democrats can't simply put a reasonable compromise on the table and tell Republicans to take it or leave it. Start trying to turn the tables and put the onus on the party that's hold middle-class tax cuts hostage.

The GOP won a House majority last week, but it won't take effect until the new year. There's no reason for Dems to forget they're still in charge.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* It took longer than expected, but Republican Tom Foley conceded Connecticut's gubernatorial race yesterday after narrowly losing to Gov.-elect Dan Malloy (D). To his credit, Foley told reporters, "The election on Tuesday was a conclusive victory for Dan Malloy, and this result should not be questioned."

* In Minnesota's gubernatorial race, Republican Tom Emmer, narrowly trailing Democrat Mark Dayton, will not be waiving a statewide automatic hand recount.

* In the state of Washington, Rep. Rick Larsen (D) was declared the winner of his re-election bid yesterday, defeating Republican challenger John Koster with 51% of the vote.

* In Virginia, Rep. Gerald Connolly's (D) confidence over the weekend about re-election turned out to be right -- his GOP challenger will concede defeat today in the state's 11th congressional district.

* For those keeping track, there are now seven unresolved U.S. House races: California's 11th and 20th districts, Kentucky's 6th, Illinois' 8th, New York's 1st and 25th, and Texas' 27th. All seven are currently held by Dems.

* With Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) stepping down after two terms as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the race is on to replace him. The Washington Post reports that Rep. Steve Israel of New York "appears to have the inside track."

* On a per-vote basis, Sharron Angle's Senate campaign in Nevada was the most expensive in the country: she spent $97 a vote. A close second was Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in Connecticut, with her per vote average just 47 cents cheaper than Angle's.

* There seems to be little doubt that former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) is running for president in 2012.

* And in a poll that will likely push Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) even further to the right, a new Mason-Dixon survey in Utah shows a plurality of voters (48%) believe it's time to replace the long-time incumbent.

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

Bookmark and Share

WHAT ORRIN HATCH CONSIDERS A 'TAX INCREASE'.... President Obama keeps offering congressional Republicans compromise plans on tax policy, and GOP officials keep rejecting them out of hand.

In the latest offer, the White House has a proposal that seems more than fair: a permanent reduction of middle-class tax rates, and an extension of Bush-era rates for the wealthy for a year or two. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who's already foresworn compromising with Democrats on this, has a novel description of the latest presidential offer.

"That's a tax increase plain and simple that would be used to fund more Washington spending and would discourage private sector job growth," he said.

Matt Finkelstein summarized the problem nicely:

Just so we're clear, here is Hatch's argument:

(1) Temporary extension of tax cuts for the rich + temporary extension of tax cuts for the middle class = possibly acceptable outcome.

(2) Temporary extension of tax cuts for the rich + permanent extension of tax cuts for the middle class = "a tax increase plain and simple."

By the way, as far as the political establishment is concerned, Hatch is supposed to be one of the Republicans that Democrats should be able to work with in good faith.

That he considers a tax cut a tax increase suggests otherwise.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

ISSA INTENDS TO KEEP BUSY.... Rep. Darrell Issa (R), the right-wing Californian, has been chomping at the bit for two years to become the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and in the new year, he'll get his chance.

But before he takes the gavel, Issa appears to be launching "an apparent charm offensive," hoping to convince the political establishment that he's really not as crazy as he's appeared. Remember when he compared the White House job offer to Joe Sestak to "Watergate"? Issa says he no longer intends to look into it. Remember when he told Rush Limbaugh that President Obama is "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times"? Issa says he no longer believes that.

So we should expect a kinder, gentler Darrel Issa in 2011? Don't count on it.

California Rep. Darrell Issa is already eyeing a massive expansion of oversight for next year, including hundreds of hearings; creating new subcommittees; and launching fresh investigations into the bank bailout, the stimulus and, potentially, health care reform.

Issa told POLITICO in an interview that he wants each of his seven subcommittees to hold "one or two hearings each week."

"I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," Issa said.

Issa is also targeting some ambitious up-and-comers like Reps. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio -- all aggressive partisans -- to chair some of his subcommittees.

He also wants to organize aggressive oversight beyond his committee and plans to refer inquiries to other House panels, drawing even more incoming GOP chairmen to the cause of investigating the executive branch.

It's the equivalent of a full-employment plan for D.C. lawyers. Issa will be handing out subpoenas like he's handing out candy on Halloween. When former President Bill Clinton, who knows a little something about GOP witch hunts, said in September Republicans would pursue "two years of unrelenting investigations," he knew what he was talking about.

To put it in perspective, the outgoing chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), was pretty aggressive towards the end of the Bush/Cheney administration, holding 203 oversight hearings in two years. Issa intends to hold 280 oversight hearings in 2011 alone.

This would be less disconcerting if Issa were more responsible, but he's not. Just yesterday, the far-right Californian told ABC that the Obama administration "received $700 billion worth of walking around money in the stimulus and used it just that way.... I think his administration has a lot of explaining where the $700 billion went."

Of course, this is pretty nonsensical. The Recovery Act has been entirely transparent, with unprecedented levels of accountability -- there's even a website to account for every dollar spent. Despite its size, the stimulus has "strikingly few claims of fraud or abuse" precisely because the administration has been so assiduous on this. Issa makes it sound like no one knows where the money went -- but that's backwards.

Worse, this notion that the Recovery Act was made up of "walking around money" suggests Issa doesn't even pay attention to the subjects he claims to care about -- stimulus money is spent, not at the discretion of administration officials, but by a publicly available merit-based formula.

The problem isn't that Issa wants to hold the administration accountable; the problem is that Issa doesn't seem to realize the difference between legitimate areas of inquiry and partisan nonsense.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

RAND PAUL'S EVOLVING APPRECIATION FOR EARMARKS.... In the months leading up to the midterms, there was a nagging question the right tried not to think too much about: would GOP candidates telling Tea Party zealots what they want to hear ultimately change course after the elections?

I don't doubt that Republicans will be taking plenty of irresponsible steps to satisfy the demands of their base, but we're already seeing some preliminary moves away from campaign-season rhetoric.

Take Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for example, who's railed against earmark spending. As recently as Sunday, Christiane Amanpour asked the right-wing ophthalmologist, "Would you say no to earmarks?" He replied, "No more earmarks." She followed up, asking "No more? Not even in your state?" Paul answered, "No."

He told the Wall Street Journal something different.

Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

So you're not a crazy libertarian? "Not that crazy," he cracks.

I'll look forward to the Tea Partiers' response.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

DEMINT'S VISION OF BUDGET CUTS.... When it comes to the Senate, no one's further to the right than South Carolina's Jim DeMint (R). And with the GOP planning to slash spending, one would assume that DeMint would be waving the biggest hatchet.

But Jon Chait flagged an interesting exchange from the right-wing senator's recent appearance on "Meet the Press." DeMint emphasized his demand that the country be on a "path to balancing our budget," and noted the need to "look at the entitlement programs." It led host David Gregory to ask a reasonable question.

GREGORY: I want to be very specific, because going back to 2008 spending levels will not get anywhere close to balancing the budget. So, you're saying that everything has to be on the table. Cuts in defense. Cuts in Medicare. Cuts in Social Security. Is that right?

DEMINT: Well, no, we're not talking about cuts in Social Security. If we can just cut the administrative waste, we can cut hundreds of billions of dollars a year at the federal level. So, before we start cutting -- I mean, we need to keep our promises to seniors, David. And cutting benefits to seniors is not on the table.

GREGORY: But then, but where do you make the cuts? I mean, if you're protecting everything for the most potent political groups, like seniors, who go out and vote, where are you really gonna balance the budget?

DEMINT: Well, look at Paul Ryan's roadmap to the future. We see a clear path to moving back to a balanced budget over time. Again, the plans are on the table. We don't have to cut benefits for seniors. And we don't need to cut Medicare -- like the Democrats did in this big Obamacare bill. We can restore sanity in Washington without cutting any benefits to seniors or veterans.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. The first is that arguably the Senate's most far-right member is desperate to cut spending, but when pressed, says he wants to leave Social Security and Medicare alone.

The second is that DeMint twice referenced Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) "roadmap." Maybe DeMint's a little behind on his reading, but there's a disconnect here -- while vowing not to cut seniors' benefits, he's also endorsing Ryan's budget plan, which calls for privatizing Social Security and gutting Medicare. It also fails miserably in the goal DeMint claims to care about -- 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."

Raise your hand if you think Jim DeMint has any idea what he's talking about.

Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

AVERTING THE DEBT-LIMIT DISASTER?.... Sen.-elect Pat Toomey (R) of Pennsylvania will immediately become one of the chamber's most far-right members, especially on economic issues. So when it comes to next year's vote on raising the debt limit, Toomey seems like the kind of conservative who'd balk.

But asked about this the other day, Toomey resisted the urge to saber-rattle. He lamented the deficit, but told MSNBC that "defaulting on existing debt" isn't something the United States can do.

It was the first hint of what may be a larger trend. Dave Weigel noted yesterday that some GOP leaders have started to hedge on their once-inflexible positions on this, suggesting a disaster may yet be averted. John Boehner, for example, conceded, "Increasing the debt limit allows our government to meet its obligations. And I think that there are multiple options for how you deal with it."

Granted, my standards for these guys are pretty low, but this doesn't sound like the kind of thing a House Speaker would say if he intends to deliberately cause a global financial catastrophe.

This is not to say we don't have a problem here. Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has said over the weekend that he'll vote to send the country into default, as a way of sending "a message." Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-Utah) has said something similar. RNC Chairman Michael Steele said last week, "We are not going to compromise on raising the debt ceiling."

But Boehner's comments yesterday suggest cooler heads may yet prevail.

Keep in mind, votes to raise the federal debt limit have traditionally been routine and bipartisan, but for months, the far-right has eyed this upcoming vote -- due early next year -- as an opportunity, not a crisis. Bruce Bartlett warned two weeks ago:

...I am very fearful that it will be impossible to raise the debt limit, which would bring about a default and real, honest-to-God bankruptcy -- something many Tea Party-types have openly called for in an insane belief that this will somehow or other impose fiscal discipline on out-of-control government spending without forcing them to vote either for spending cuts or tax increases.

Just to be perfectly clear, if the new Republican majority in the House blocks an effort to raise the debt limit, this tells the world that the country isn't in a position to repay its debts. U.S. treasuries, considered the safest investment on earth, would no longer have the backing of the full faith and credit of the United States. The result is a government shutdown -- and a whole lot more.

Remarks from Boehner, Toomey, and some of their cohorts suggest they won't actually let matters get that far.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

MANCHIN 'IS NOT SWITCHING PARTIES'.... As expected, a Fox News report on Senate Republicans trying to lure Sen.-elect Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to the GOP caused a stir yesterday afternoon. And as expected, the report appears to be fiction.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) on Monday evening batted down any suggestion that he is considering a party switch following his scheduled swearing-in next week as the Mountain State's junior Senator.

Additionally, a Senate Republican leadership aide said GOP leaders made no such offer. Manchin and the Senate GOP aide were reacting to a FoxNews.com story posted earlier in the day. The report indicated that leaders were trying to entice Manchin to switch parties by offering sweeteners, such as support for favored legislation, and that he was considering the offer.

"Joe Manchin is a lifelong Democrat, and he is not switching parties. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington -- individuals try to put politics before our nation," said Melvin Smith, a spokesman in the governor's office. "Joe Manchin wants to go to Washington to encourage Members of Congress to stop partisan bickering and start putting our nation's needs at the forefront."

And while Fox News quoted an unnamed "advisor" to Manchin, Derek Scarbro, the executive director of the West Virginia Democratic Party and a close Manchin ally, called the rumor "ridiculous."

What's more, I talked to someone active in Democratic West Virginia politics last night who reminded me that Manchin has no incentive to even consider an offer from the GOP, should he receive one -- his victory last week was in a special election to fill the remainder of Robert Byrd's term, and he'll have to run again in 2012 for a full term. If Manchin tried to run as a Republican, he'd face a primary and lose to someone far more conservative. (The party could conceivably promise to support Manchin in a primary fight, but 2010 made clear that GOP leaders' backing in Republican primaries is meaningless.)

Manchin won't exactly be the Democrats' most reliable ally, but the notion of him leaving the party altogether appears highly unlikely.

As for the piece that got tongues wagging, this is another reminder that it's rarely wise to take Fox News "reporting" too seriously.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 8, 2010

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

* This seemed to go over well in India: "President Obama announced here on Monday that the United States would back India's bid for a permanent seat on an expanded United Nations Security Council, a major policy shift that underscores their strengthening partnership. Mr. Obama made the announcement -- a priority for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh -- during a late afternoon speech to Parliament."

* In response to the latest plot: "The U.S. tightened security on cargo shipments flown from abroad Monday, banning 'high-risk' cargo from flying on passenger planes after last month's discovery of a plot that originated in Yemen to send bombs in shipped packages. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also extended last week's ban on all air cargo from Yemen to include Somalia as well."

* The race between James Clyburn and Steny Hoyer for Minority Whip is actually more interesting than I'd expected, with a surprising number of liberals lining up behind the current Majority Leader.

* Legal nonsense in Oklahoma is put on hold: "A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued a temporary restraining order barring the state from adopting a constitutional amendment voters passed last week that forbids state courts from enforcing Islamic law, also known as sharia, The Associated Press reports."

* Speaking of legal news, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down the first preliminary challenge to the Affordable Care Act today. The AP noted, "The decision Monday to reject an appeal from a former Republican state lawmaker in California was no surprise because a federal appeals court has yet to consider the case. The high court almost never reviews cases before the issues have been aired in lower courts."

* A wild story out of Maryland, where on Election Day, more than 50,000 voters were called two hours before the polls closed, suggesting Democrats who hadn't voted shouldn't bother because Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) had already won re-election. The calls apparently came from a controversial Democratic operative who hoped to help the Republican in the race.

* Republican Sen.-elect Mark Kirk of Illinois will join his new colleagues during the lame-duck session, but will have to wait until after the state Board of Elections certifies his election, which may not be until after Thanksgiving.

* Remember that weird assistant attorney general in Michigan who launched a bizarre crusade against a gay college student for no apparent reason? He's been fired.

* Kaplan sure does make a lot of money for the Washington Post Company.

* Why did Nicaragua sort-of invade Costa Rica? Because of Google Maps. (This is a subject regular readers of the Washington Monthly already know all about thanks to a fascinating recent report from John Gravois.)

* And at this point, it doesn't look like Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have any intention of caucusing with Republicans.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

THE GOP'S PLANS FOR CLIMATE HEARINGS.... Marc Ambinder noted last week that the incoming House Republican majority "plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged 'scientific fraud' behind global warming." The good news, as Greg Sargent reported today, is that if those plans were in place, they've since been scrapped.

Republican leaders are "apparently aware what a circus hearings into the allegedly fraudulent science underlying global warming would be -- and how it would play into Dem efforts to paint Republicans as hostage to extremists."

On the other hand, while CRU hearings probably aren't on the horizon, don't be too surprised if the majority nevertheless uses hearings to go after climate science -- or more accurately, any efforts to deal with the climate crisis.

One of the top climate skeptics in the House is asking GOP leadership to keep the Democrats' global warming committee alive to investigate the Obama administration's environmental policies.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is making good on his promise to pitch Republicans to revamp the committee to focus on the costs of Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

"The threat of the EPA's reach into the economy is so great that it deserves special attention this Congress, and no panel has developed more experience on these topics than the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming," Sensenbrenner said in a statement. "These regulations are moving quickly, but the oversight and subpoena power wielded by the Select Committee would put a tall hurdle in the path and would further expose the economic destruction these policies would bring."

The underlying point, of course, is the administration's alternative to pursuing a cap-and-trade policy: using the EPA to simply regulate carbon emissions. In addition to hoping to strip the EPA of authority on dealing with emissions, congressional Republicans are also eyeing a series of pointless hearings to harass and intimidate EPA chief Lisa Jackson.

I'm glad the alleged "scientific fraud" nonsense appears to be off the GOP to-do list. If only Republicans didn't have related plans, I'd feel less discouraged.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

MANCHIN'S COMMITMENT TO HIS PARTY.... The U.S. Senate race in West Virginia proved to be one of the more competitive contests of the year, but Democrats managed to hold onto the seat previously held by the late Robert Byrd. Gov. Joe Manchin (D), with nearly $4 million in help from the DSCC, beat John Raese (R) by double digits.

The question now appears to be whether Manchin will keep his commitment to his party. Fox News reports today that Senate Republicans are already offering a series of bribes enticements, intended to tempt the senator-elect away from his party and into the GOP.

Aside from his pick of committee assignments (likely the Energy and Natural Resources Committee), Manchin might get support for one of his pet projects - a plant to convert coal to diesel fuel that has stalled under Democratic leadership in Washington.

A Manchin advisor was quoted by Fox News saying, "He was elected as a Democrat and he has to go to Washington as a Democrat to try, in good faith, to make the changes in the party he campaigned on. Now, if that doesn't work and Democrats aren't receptive, I don't know what possibilities that leaves open."

I don't doubt this will cause a stir, but I'd recommend caution before taking the report too seriously. For one thing, Fox News lies, all the time, simply as part of its business model. For another, quoting an unnamed "advisor" isn't exactly rock-solid reporting. An "advisor" falls well below "staffer" or "aide" in reporting sources.

It would also be pretty odd for a member to deliberately give up a seat in the majority to join a Senate minority.

As far as I can tell, at this point, neither the senator-elect nor anyone who actually works for him has said or done anything to suggest Fox News' reporting has any merit at all.

But, I suppose it's worth keeping an eye on. I figure, if Fox News is talking about it, the network probably got word from the Republican leadership, suggesting, at a minimum, the GOP will see if Manchin is receptive to outreach. What's more, these stories have a way of sometimes becoming self-fulfilling -- the media starts buzzing about Manchin talking to Republicans, which in turn leads to Manchin talking to Republicans.

I don't know Manchin well enough to say whether this might go anywhere -- one on-the-record denial should help end the chatter fairly quickly -- but I suppose it will come down to which Joe Manchin goes to D.C., the populist who champions the needs of working families, or the guy who ran to the right this fall?

Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

THERE ARE RINGS TO BE KISSED.... There's been a fair amount of attention today about the lead Politico piece on President Obama's "isolation." Josh Marshall's take, highlighting the article as an example of a larger worldview, is well worth reading.

But I wanted to flag an excerpt from the Politico piece that I found important.

President Barack Obama has performed his act of contrition. Now comes the hard part, according to Democrats around the country: reckoning with the simple fact that he's isolated himself from virtually every group that matters in American politics. [...]

In his effort to change Washington, Obama has failed to engage Washington and its institutions and customs, leaving him estranged from the capital's permanent power structure -- right at the moment when Democrats say he must rethink his strategy for cultivating and nurturing relations with key constituencies ahead of 2012.

This really helps capture a certain Beltway mindset. Glenn Greenwald called it "a living, breathing embodiment of America's political culture and its ruling class."

Quite right. The focus is on the president's willingness -- or, in this case, his reluctance -- to remain connected to the Washington machine. There are power brokers, apparently, who've come to expect a degree of deference, and Obama isn't playing by the traditional rules.

All of this, by the way, is characterized in the Politico article as criticism, not praise.

Indeed, what Politico identifies as the "power structure" and the groups "that matter," are some of the same entities voters don't have much use for: party bosses, "business leaders," and "lobbyists." And yet, the implication is that the president had better start preparing to kiss some rings if he hopes to survive politically.

In fairness, the article touches on a few easily-corrected slights that a White House should be mindful of as part of a healthy relationship with Congress. But the crux of the piece focuses on the need for the president to "repair these damaged relations" with powerful Beltway types -- or as they're described in the piece, "the constituencies required for success in Washington."

In one particularly telling anecdote, we learn that Obama hosted a dinner last year for Senate committee chairs and ranking members, but apparently rubbed attendees the wrong way when he "went back to the residence [after dinner] without shaking hands or visiting each table."

There was no mention of policy problems in the piece, only a presidential neglect of D.C. "institutions and customs."

Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE STEELE WAS ON TO SOMETHING.... Way back in January, RNC Chairman Michael Steele talked to Sean Hannity, who asked the Republican leader if his party is prepared to govern if it reclaimed a congressional majority.

"I don't know," Steele conceded.

Eleven months later, no one else can answer the same question with any confidence. Ross Douthat doesn't sound optimistic.

Today's Republicans ... tend to fall back on the reassuring story they've been spinning for the last two years, in which they lost to the Democrats only because they failed to hold the line on spending. It's a narrative that flatters conservative self-regard, while absolving Republicans of the obligation to think too deeply about policy. All they need to do is say "no" to bigger government, and the rest will take care of itself.

This strategy has worked for them in opposition, thanks to the Democratic Party's haste and hubris. But it isn't a blueprint for governance, and it ducks the real reasons that the Republicans lost their majority. While the Bush administration overspent, it wasn't spending and deficits that turned the country against conservative domestic policy between 2004 and 2008. It was the fact that the Republican majority seemed to have no answers to Middle America's economic struggles, and no appetite for the structural reforms required to keep the United States competitive.

This is even more true today. The United States is facing three overlapping crises -- the short-term challenge of a jobless recovery, the long-term crisis of entitlement spending and, in the medium term, an economy that wasn't delivering for the middle class even before the financial crisis struck. The Democratic Party may have the wrong answers to these problems. But the Republican Party as an institution often seems to have no answers whatsoever.

Not surprisingly, I'd take issue with large chunks of this, including the notion of voters punishing Democratic "haste."

But the larger point is arguably more important -- on the biggest issues of the day, Republicans aren't just failing to offer good answers, they're hardly asking good questions.

Douthat's vision isn't even close to my own, but he's nevertheless looking for the same thing I am from Republican leaders -- a sense that there are Republican grown-ups prepared to "get serious about policy."

They're not -- they're not even pretending especially well -- and the consequences very likely won't be pretty.

Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WHEN THEY PUSH REPEAL.... One of the key messages Republican officials have emphasized since the midterm elections is their intention to push, full steam ahead, with repealing the entire Affordable Care Act. We have some sense of the political difficulties of pulling that off with a Democratic White House and Democratic Senate, but as far as the GOP and its supporters are concerned, they'll do whatever it takes to gut the system.

While we know why the right wants to do this, and roughly how they'll go about trying, I continue to think there hasn't been enough discussion of what the consequences of this policy would mean in practical terms. Take the effects on Medicare , for example. Jonathan Cohn's piece on this today drove the point home nicely.

[Republicans have been] attacking the health overhaul for what it will do to Medicare. And instead of accusing Democrats of trying to dump more money into a government program, as Republicans would typically do, they've attacked Democrats for doing the very opposite -- noting that the Affordable Care Act will reduce spending on Medicare somewhere around $400 billion over the next ten years. Apparently government-run health care is awful, except, um, when it isn't. [...]

But here's where things could get complicated for the advocates of repeal. Consider what undoing the cuts in Medicare would entail. It would start, first of all, with restoring higher payments to the insurers that provide private coverage for people in Medicare, through what's known as the Medicare Advantage plans. There's a reason the health law reduces those payments: Repeated independent studies, including those by the well-respected Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, determined that the government was paying the insurers too much.

Restore those payments, and you're wasting taxpayer dollars. And a lot of those wasted dollars will go to hiring new people to work at insurance companies. They won't be government bureaucrats, obviously. They'll be insurance company bureaucrats. But is that really better? Is the Tea Party in favor of waste as long as its lines the pockets of insurance executives rather than Uncle Sam?

Meanwhile, restoring the other cuts to Medicare would mean rescinding payment reductions designed to make the program more efficient.

Right. GOP candidates, including radical libertarians like Sen.-elect Rand Paul, were elected after running attack ads going after Dems on Medicare. It worked -- seniors showed up and voted Republican.

But at the same time, these same GOP candidates want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would in turn undermine Medicare's long-term health, make it less efficient, more wasteful, all while reintroducing the prescription drug "doughnut" hole.

It's not a plan seniors are going to like.

Indeed, we can see a similar dynamic play out on a variety of fronts -- Republicans talk about satisfying the demands of deficit hawks, but repealing the health care law would increase the deficit. They talk about taxes, but repealing the health care law would increase taxes on small businesses. They talk about being "pro-family," but repealing the health care law would leave far fewer kids with coverage.

And they talk about Medicare and waste, but repealing the health care law would lead to more wasteful spending while undermining Medicare.

Talking about repealing the ACA is easy. If only Republicans had some sense of what it was they were talking about, we could have a far more compelling debate.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

COMPROMISE EFFORTS WON'T BE NEW.... NBC's First Read, noting President Obama's interview on "60 Minutes," said "the most striking" part of the interview was the president's "admission that that he and his administration didn't compromise and work with the Republicans."

Now, I watched the entire 70-minute, unedited interview from start to finish, and at no point did Obama say anything like this. In fact, the observation is backwards -- the president said the opposite, and at one point, Steve Kroft did, too.

OBAMA: What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna reach out to Republicans and I'm gonna say, "What can we work on together?" There are gonna be some things that we can't agree on. You know? Philosophically. And so, we will have those battles. And we'll save those decisions till after the next election. But in the meantime, there must be some things we can agree on.

KROFT: Haven't you tried that?

OBAMA: Well I have, but I'm gonna keep on trying.... And what I'm gonna constantly be looking for are areas that draw from the Democratic ideas, Republican ideas to find that commonsense center, where we can move the country forward. Even though we'll still have some, you know, big disagreements and big debates on other issues.

At a separate point in the interview, the president lamented the fact that he and his team, particularly on health care, "couldn't get the kind of cooperation from Republicans that I had hoped for. We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn't that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans -- including a Republican governor in Massachusetts who's now running for President -- that, you know, we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn't."

That's not an "admission" that the White House "didn't compromise and work with the Republicans"; it's a reflection on the opposite point.

The president, by all appearances, intends to keep trying to reach out to Republicans, even though they apparently prioritize destroying his presidency, and even though previous efforts at outreach haven't been well received. Last night's interview wasn't ambiguous on this point.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Over the weekend, it appeared that Dan Malloy (D) had finally won Connecticut's gubernatorial race, though his opponent, Republican Tom Foley, has not yet accepted the results. Foley intends to address whether he'll challenge the results in a press conference today.

* According a draft schedule from Minnesota's secretary of state, the recount in the state's gubernatorial race would begin on Nov. 29 and (hopefully) wrap up on Dec. 14.

* In Arizona's 8th congressional district, incumbent Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) narrowly held on to win re-election in results announced late Friday. She defeated her right-wing challenger by under 4,000 votes.

* Similarly, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D) in Virginia's 11th congressional district also appears to have staved off his GOP challenger.

* In less encouraging House news for Dems, in New York's 1st, an initial tally showed incumbent Rep. Tim Bishop (D) ahead by a slim margin, but a recanvassing of the ballot machines showed Republican Randy Altschuler up by nearly 400 votes.

* There are, by the way, nine U.S. House races that remain unresolved.

* With several leading Dem senators unwilling to serve as the next chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the party still wants Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) to do the job again. Schumer really doesn't seem interested.

* On the other side of the aisle, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) will stay on as head of the NRSC, and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) will keep his current post atop the NRCC.

* And how did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) win by a surprisingly large margin in Nevada last week, after all the late polling showed him losing? Mark Blumenthal and Josh Marshall have interesting pieces on the subject.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share

DON'T CAVE ON DADT.... President Obama said last week he'd like to see the Senate take up repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during its lame-duck session, which begins next week. Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates also urged lawmakers to act quickly on the issue, though he seemed pessimistic about its chances.

That seems to be emerging as something of a consensus. The Wall Street Journal reported today:

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it. With a repeal attached, and amid Republican complaints over the terms of the debate, the defense bill had failed to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September.

Now, the article was noticeably short on quotes. What's more, the WSJ isn't always the most reliable of outlets, especially when it comes to Democratic intentions.

But at this point, I can only hope Dems know better that to let this opportunity slip away. Adam Serwer noted, "Look, if Democrats can't repeal a policy more than two thirds of the American people, including a majority of conservatives want gone then they can't expect people to vote for them.... Truman ended segregation in the military because it was the right thing to do, despite the fact that it was unpopular. Ending DADT happens to be both popular and the right thing to do, and Democrats today still can't get it done."

I'm probably less inclined than Adam to blame Democrats, since it's not entirely up to them. When this last came up in the Senate before adjournment, literally every Democrats was on the right side of the issue, and literally every Republican was on the wrong side. "Getting it done" in the face of unyielding GOP obstructionism is arguably harder than it sounds.

That said, the larger point about urging Dems not to cave on this issue is entirely right. It's not as if Levin can strike a deal with McCain to bring the issue back up next year -- either it gets done in the lame-duck, or we'll have to wait years before even trying to get this through Congress again.

If lawmakers are inclined to wait until after Dec. 1, when a Pentagon study is due on servicemembers' attitudes, fine. At that point, a majority of the troops, a majority of American civilians, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and two of his recent predecessors will all be saying the exact same thing: it's time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Proponents of military readiness and common sense just need a Republican vote or two to finally move forward. Carl Levin has been solid on this issue; here's hoping he resists the urge to trade away doing the right thing.

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

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Eric Cantor (R-Va.), soon to be the House Majority Leader, insisted yesterday that Republicans would not accept any compromise on tax policy. They want it all, regardless of cost, and will accept nothing less than everything they demand.

That part wasn't surprising. It's how Cantor made the case during a Fox News interview yesterday that stood out.

"I really want to see that we can come together and agree upon the notion that Washington doesn't need more revenues right now," Cantor said.

Every time I bring up the fact that Eric Cantor is surprisingly unintelligent, I get pushback, especially from Republicans who insist that Cantor is one of the sharpest GOP minds on Capitol Hill.

But the man has never demonstrated a working knowledge of any area of public policy. Take this quote, just as the latest example among many. Eric Cantor seriously believes that everyone should be able to agree that the federal government "doesn't need more revenues right now."

In what universe does that make sense? The federal government ran a $1.29 trillion deficit last year, and the national debt is well over $13 trillion. We're in the midst of two wars, and have all kinds of costly obligations. No sane person could look at the country's fiscal landscape and conclude that the federal government has plenty of money, and has no need for more.

And yet, Cantor not only argued this on national television, he suggested it's an incontrovertible point.

Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

HOW THE PARTIES HANDLE ADVERSITY.... Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a piece with all kinds of Democratic handwringing in the wake of the midterm elections. Plenty of Dems -- some on the record, some not -- are blaming aspects of President Obama's style, including his inability to emote and be "an extrovert." Clinton, the argument goes, felt voters' pain in ways Obama doesn't. Politico had a similar item today.

Kevin Drum noted how very annoying all of this is.

Honest, to God, stuff like this just makes me want to scream. Why do Democrats panic so badly whenever they lose an election? Why run to the nearest reporter to spout idiocies about Obama not feeling middle class pain or not being an extrovert like Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton! For chrissake, I like and defend the guy, but he was an extrovert who felt people's pain and he lost 54 seats in the 1994 midterm. No one cared if he felt their pain. Likewise, no one cares if Obama feels their pain. They want jobs, not pursed lips and moist eyes.

This stuff is so inane, so ego-driven, so self-destructive that it drives me crazy. Why are Democrats such idiots?

I think it's helpful to look back at how Republicans handled their electoral setbacks in recent years, because there's a noticeable difference in how the parties respond to adversity.

In 1998, voters were unimpressed, to put it mildly, with the Republican crusade against Bill Clinton. In the midterms, voters sent a message -- in a historical rarity, the party that controlled the White House gained congressional seats. It was a stinging rebuke of the GOP and its excesses, and yet, House Republicans responded by impeaching the president anyway. In fact, they did so quickly, ramming impeachment through the chamber before newly-elected lawmakers could take office.

Eight years later, in 2006, voters were widely dissatisfied with the war in Iraq, and wanted to see a withdrawal. In the midterms, the Republican majority didn't just suffer setbacks; they lost both the House and Senate. It was an overwhelming rejection of GOP rule. In response, Republicans endorsed escalating the conflict anyway, and didn't change course at all.

In 2008, Democrats took the White House and expanded their congressional majorities to heights unseen in a generation. After years of witnessing abject failure, the electorate wanted nothing to do with the GOP. Republicans responded by changing literally nothing about their agenda, ideas, ideology, rhetoric, tone, attitude, or approach to politics.

In 2009, there were five congressional special elections. Democrats won all five -- including one district that hadn't been represented by a Democrat since the 1800s. Despite frustrations about the pace of change in D.C., voters still weren't buying what the GOP was selling. Republicans again responded by changing literally nothing.

But Dems just don't seem to operate this way, and in the wake of midterm setbacks -- which were bad, but could have been worse -- their handling of adversity leaves much to be desired.

Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

Bookmark and Share

A JOB SHE'S THRIVED IN BEFORE.... Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised some eyebrows on Friday afternoon, announcing that she will seek the House Minority Leader post in the next Congress. Blue Dogs, not surprisingly, aren't happy with the idea.

Oddly enough, the usually-sharp editorial page of the New York Times seems to think the center-right Democrats have a point. After lauding Pelosi's tenure as Speaker, the NYT argues she has the wrong skill set for this other job.

Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House minority leader. That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public's throat. Both Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are inside players who seem to visibly shrink on camera when defending their policies, rarely connecting with the skeptical independent voters who raged so loudly on Tuesday.

I happen to think Pelosi would make a fine Minority Leader, but I'm willing to concede her detractors' argument isn't ridiculous. For one thing, in the wake of drastic losses, it's not unusual to expect a leadership shake-up. For another, the Times is right that Pelosi is a better legislator than communicator.

But there's one detail the editorial neglected to mention: Pelosi has already been House Minority Leader, and she proved herself pretty good at it. In fact, she was Minority Leader in 2006 -- the cycle Democrats took back the House majority.

If the post isn't "a good match for her abilities," why did she thrive in the position before?

Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share

MAYBE THEY DON'T MIND BEING SEEN AS 'A BUNCH OF YAHOOS'.... About a month ago, Eric Cantor (R-Va.), soon to be the House Majority Leader, was asked if we're likely to see a replay of the partisan showdown that led Newt Gingrich to shut down the government (twice) after the 1994 midterms.

Cantor replied, "No. I don't think the country needs or wants a shutdown." He added that when it comes to pursuing their agenda, Republicans "have to be careful" or they'll be "seen as a bunch of yahoos."

It seemed at least somewhat reassuring. Cantor is a powerful and influential GOP leader, and if he recognizes the foolishness of such radicalism, maybe it'll be less likely to happen.

That, however, was before the election. Note the evident shift in Cantor's rhetoric yesterday.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the #2 Republican in the House, threatened to take the nation's economy hostage if President Obama does not comply with House GOPers' as yet undefined demands. When asked if he would take a government shutdown on forcing the United States to default on its debt off the table, Cantor responded that it would somehow be President Obama's fault if House Republicans press this agenda.

Chris Wallace asked a straightforward question: "Are you willing to say right now we're not going to let the country go into default, and we won't allow a government shutdown?" A month ago, Cantor's response was direct and sensible.

Yesterday, he dodged the question, saying only the president is "as responsible as any in terms of running this government."

In other words, Cantor, like some of his colleagues, want to start laying the groundwork for his party's recklessness.

Also note the specifics of the question -- Wallace wasn't asking about health care or taxes; he wanted to know if Cantor would at least rule out letting the United States go into default. The incoming House Majority Leader wouldn't even answer that one.

For all the talk about Republicans preparing to reassure markets and add some certainty to the economic outlook, the incoming GOP majority is implicitly threatening to cause a global economic catastrophe, threatening the full faith and credit of the United States, unless Democrats give in to their demands.

I don't think the typical American has any idea how drastic a mistake the country made last week.

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

Bookmark and Share

SHORTEST SUSPENSION -- IN THE WORLD.... We learned Friday morning that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann contributed to three Democratic congressional candidates this year, with checks totaling $7,200. NBC News, citing personnel policies prohibiting such donations, announced Friday afternoon that the "Countdown" host had been suspended indefinitely, without pay.

The word "indefinitely" has a certain connotation, suggesting a fairly long period of time. With that in mind, it came as something of a surprise to learn late yesterday that Olbermann will be back behind his desk tomorrow.

"After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy," the MSNBC president, Phil Griffin, said in a statement. "We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night."

Mr. Olbermann has declined interview requests since Friday, and he did not immediately confirm that he would resume his program, "Countdown," as of Tuesday. But on Sunday afternoon, he posted to Twitter a thank-you to fans for "support that feels like a global hug."

"MSNBC Folds!" read a headline on Daily Kos, one of the leading Web sites for progressives, on Sunday night after Mr. Griffin's statement was released.

I'm not privy to internal NBC News deliberations, but this certainly seems like a fold on the network's part.

To be sure, the executives found themselves in a pretty awkward position. If they ignored Olbermann's transgression, they'd send a signal that they don't take their own standards seriously enough. But by issuing an indefinite suspension, the network caused even more problems for themselves -- the decision was widely panned as excessive; it angered MSNBC's viewers; and kept its top-rated host off the air, which isn't exactly good for ratings.

Faced with all of this, NBC News appears to have concluded that two nights off the air is sufficient punishment.

Whether one sees this as a face-saving gesture or not, I'm glad the flap is over.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE WEEKEND.... Here's a recap of what we covered over the weekend:

On Sunday, we talked about...

* When it comes to economic policy, Republican officials intend to push an ideological agenda; whether it actually helps or not is largely irrelevant.

* Republican officials will be debating amongst themselves for a while over who was most responsible for the loss in Delaware's U.S. Senate race.

* High-speed rail is a good idea for a wide variety of reasons. Incoming GOP governors don't seem to care.

* Facing a deep budget hole after years of far-right recklessness, Texas is considering withdrawing from the Medicaid program altogether.

* The NRSC's fundraising gambit on Alaska's U.S. Senate race is pretty shameless -- and may end up annoying Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R).

* Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sure does like the idea of launching a war against Iran.

And on Saturday, we talked about:

* Were the accomplishments of the last two years worth losing the Democratic House majority over? Of course they were.

* Blue Dog Dems should probably keep in mind that they contributed to their own demise.

* "This Week in God" covered a variety of religio-political items, including a look at midterm exit polls as they related to faith groups.

* Sharron Angle warned of "Second Amendment remedies" if she lost. Given the results in Nevada, should we be worried?

* Right-wing attacks on President Obama's Asia trip were ridiculous. They were also predictable.

* I'd like to see more policymakers ask themselves "How would that help the economy?" with every proposal they offer.

* And Rachel Maddow's segment on Friday's Keith Olbermann flap offered some very helpful details and context. (More on that story in a minute.)

Steve Benen 7:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 7, 2010

WHAT TO EXPECT.... It's easy to imagine, without even considering various comments and post-election moves, what kind of political fights we're likely to see next year. There will be disputes over health care, government spending, taxes, consumer and worker protections, Wall Street safeguards, etc.

But as Republican officials, including the incoming House majority leadership, plan ahead for 2011, Lori Montgomery had a good piece yesterday on what we can expect from a GOP unaccustomed to governing. The agenda "calls for a radical reduction in government spending, a hard-line stance against new taxes and a 'sustained' battle against federal regulators."

Republicans reject the notion that government spending can spur prosperity. Instead, they favor keeping tax rates steady by extending Bush-administration tax breaks that are set to expire this year and repealing President Obama's health overhaul. Republicans also want to restrain government regulators and are looking to require congressional approval for any new regulation that imposes costs on the private sector in excess of $100 million a year.

On Friday, Cantor even rejected President Obama's call for additional tax breaks to spur hiring, such as a proposal to let businesses deduct their expenses more quickly.

Republicans offer "a disciplined approach to removing uncertainty and to allowing the private sector to regain its footing and begin to grow again," Cantor said in an interview.

Now, Cantor isn't especially bright, and he may not understand the talking points written for him, but the crux of his economic policy (such as it is) is the preservation of Bush-era tax rates. Asked this morning on Fox News about areas of possible compromise, Cantor ruled out any possibility other than Republicans getting literally everything they want without exception.

Of course, it's worth appreciating the fact that we know the Bush/Cheney tax policy Republicans are desperate to continue didn't produce the intended results. Indeed, it was abject failure -- it didn't create jobs, it didn't generate tremendous growth, and it didn't keep a balanced budget.

In other words, the one economic policy Republicans will fight for, no matter what, is the one economic policy we know didn't work.

And then, there's the approach to spending.

To make good on their campaign pledge to reduce the size of government, Republicans say they are planning a series of quick moves to slash spending soon after they take control of the House in January. Among the likely options: a massive rescissions package that aides said would slice 20 percent from most domestic agency budgets and enact $160 billion in additional cuts endorsed by visitors to Cantor's "YouCut" Web site.

Such a package would trim more than $260 billion from this year's $1.1 trillion budget for most government operations -- the biggest one-year reduction at least since the military drawdown after World War II, budget experts said.

Because Republicans propose to exempt the Pentagon, veterans programs and homeland security from these cuts, liberal analysts said the reductions would decimate education funding, the National Park Service and other worthy programs.

Of course, it's not just liberal analysts saying this -- it's plainly true. If one intends to cut $260 billion from the budget, and the Pentagon, veterans programs, and homeland security are off the table, we're clearly talking about devastating cuts in areas like education, health care, law enforcement, and infrastructure.

How would that help the economy? I don't know; I don't think they know; and as far as I can tell, it's not at all clear they even care. This isn't about striving for a worthwhile policy goal; this is about satisfying ideological/philosophical demands.

"I don't get what they think they're doing to stimulate the economy right now," Bill Gale, a senior fellow in economics studies at the Brookings Institution, said. "I can understand that people are angry or upset about the economy. But I can't understand how that anger and anxiety has turned into this set of legislative proposals."

Let's make this plain: Republicans aren't trying to create jobs or improve the economy. If that happens, I'm sure they'd be pleased, but it's simply not on the list of priorities. When confronted with evidence that their cuts would hurt the middle class, weaken economic demand, and serve as an anti-stimulus in the midst of a weak recovery, GOP officials don't care about any of that, either.

The New York Times noted the other day that "many mainstream economists say such deep cuts could further strain the economy." That's obviously true. It's equally obvious that Republicans couldn't care less.

I think some Americans realize how ugly next year will be, but the scope of this fiasco won't really sink in until the crises begin.

Voters punished the Democratic majority because they were unsatisfied with the state of the economy, but they replaced it with a new House majority that seems painfully anxious to make things worse.

As we've talked about before, we have a certain luxury when it comes to our economic problems. Some societies don't know they have a problem; some know they have a problem but don't know how to fix it. We know we have a problem and we know how to fix it, but we have policymakers in Congress who refuse to even consider what's necessary.

We need to spend more to stimulate the economy, while fighting against deflation. The prevailing wisdom in Congress is that we need to spend less while fighting against inflation.

I want to be optimistic about the near future, and think we'll somehow muddle though, but the rise of reckless, radical Republicans is probably going to be worse than the country realizes.

Steve Benen 12:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share

POINTING FINGERS OVER DELAWARE.... Jonathan Martin noted this morning that "the question over Who Lost Delaware" will likely be "the symbolic driver over intra-GOP debate for months."

That sounds entirely right to me. The outcome in Delaware -- Chris Coons (D) defeated Christine O'Donnell (R) by 16 points in the U.S. Senate race -- didn't dictate which party would be in the majority next year, but it nevertheless offers a classic example of one of the key GOP missteps of 2010. The seat was a guaranteed GOP pick-up, right up until Tea Partiers, Jim DeMint, and Sarah Palin rallied behind a lunatic in the Republican primary. An easy win for the GOP became a one-sided loss.

Plenty of Republicans aren't happy about it, and some are even going on the record. The main target of intra-party criticism, South Carolina's DeMint, this morning insisted the debacle isn't his fault -- O'Donnell, he said, would have won were it not for the party.

"I supported all the Republican candidates including Christine O'Donnell. Unfortunately she was so maligned by Republicans she never had a chance," DeMint said. [...]

"I think we did see in the wake of her primary when a number of Republicans said she was not a viable candidate ... made it difficult for her to start on the right foot," DeMint added.

I have no idea if DeMint actually believes his own rhetoric -- the guy is pretty far gone, so it's hard to say for sure -- but the argument is pretty silly. Delaware never elects right-wing extremists to statewide office, and O'Donnell never really stood a chance. Whether Karl Rove said something unkind about her on Fox News the night of the primary is irrelevant -- it's not like a significant percentage of Delaware voters were watching anyway.

DeMint is loath to admit it, but Delaware went precisely how he intended it to go. The right-wing senator has said more than once that he'd rather have fewer seats, so long as they're filled by hard-right ideologues, than more GOP seats filled by electable centrists.

Given that, he shouldn't bother with half-hearted finger pointing; DeMint should wear this fiasco as a badge of pride.

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

SO MUCH FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL.... Following up on an item from a month ago, it'd be an understatement to say the United States has an infrastructure problem. We're currently "saddled with a rapidly decaying and woefully underfunded transportation system," which undermines our economy and weakens our position against global competitors.

A bipartisan investigation recently found that U.S. investment in preservation and development of transportation infrastructure "lags so far behind that of China, Russia and European nations that it will lead to 'a steady erosion of the social and economic foundations for American prosperity in the long run.'"

That's the bad news. The good news is, President Obama seems deeply interested in making infrastructure investments a real priority, and approves of the kind of policies the bipartisan panel of experts endorsed, including "continued development of high-speed rail systems better integrated with freight rail transportation, and expansion of intermodal policies rather than reliance on highways alone to move goods and people."

So, there's reason for optimism, right? Sure, we have a serious national problem, but we know how to fix it, and we have a White House that wants to do the right thing. Especially when it comes to high-speed rail, which has broad national appeal, the president has already begun making key investments.

Brad Johnson reminds us that Republican governors have a very different idea.

Republicans who were elected on Tuesday are beginning to deliver on their campaign promises to kill America's future. Within hours of declaring victory, the incoming tea-party governors of Wisconsin and Ohio stood fast on pledges to kill $1.2 billion in funding for high-speed rail in their states. The funding, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will revert to the federal government for investment in other states -- unless Republicans in Congress are able to kill that, too.

[Wisconsin's Scott] Walker warned he would fight President Obama to keep the Milwaukee-Madison link killed "if he tries to force this down the throats of the taxpayers." [Ohio's John] Kasich -- who called the high-speed rail project linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati "one of the dumbest ideas" he's ever heard -- used his victory speech to announce, "That train is dead."

I'd just add that, though it hasn't come up this week, Florida Gov.-elect Rick Scott (R) also intends to kill the rail project linking Orlando and Tampa.

We are, by the way, talking about projects that create jobs, spur economic development, relieve traffic congestion, and help the environment, all while offering the promise of transforming American transportation in the 21st century.

Republicans don't care.

The Republican line used to be that they can keep the trains running on time. The new line is that they can't keep the trains running at all.

Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.... About a year ago, the New York Times' Ross Douthat argued that we'd all be a lot better off if policymakers only followed Texas' example.

[S]uddenly Texas looks like a model citizen. The Lone Star kept growing well after the country had dipped into recession. Its unemployment rate and foreclosure rate are both well below the national average. It's one of only six states that didn't run budget deficits in 2009.

Even at the time, there was quite a bit wrong with this analysis, most notably the fact that Texas is crippled by a crushing poverty rate, and has the worst rate of residents without health coverage in the country.

But putting that aside, a year later, the "model citizen" is feeling the effects of a decade of conservatism -- the deficit-free Texas from 2009 suddenly finds itself in a $25 billion hole.

Officials already intend to slash school funding statewide, but that's not all they're thinking about.

Some Republican lawmakers -- still reveling in Tuesday's statewide election sweep -- are proposing an unprecedented solution to the state's estimated $25 billion budget shortfall: dropping out of the federal Medicaid program.

Far-right conservatives are offering that possibility in impassioned news conferences. Moderate Republicans are studying it behind closed doors. And the party's advisers on health care policy say it is being discussed more seriously than ever, though they admit it may be as much a huge in-your-face to Washington as anything else.

If Texas proceeds down this road, it intends to save $60 billion from 2013 to 2019 by opting out of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. It would stand to crush 3.6 million people, including a whole lot of low-income children, but just think of the savings!

One lawmaker told the NYT that she's consider the move, "but only if it made fiscal sense without jeopardizing care."

Yeah, good luck with that.

In the meantime, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), re-elected this week to yet another term, is still talking up the idea of states opting out of Social Security, though as a policy matter, Perry appears to have no idea what he's talking about.

By all means, mess with Texas.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

THE NRSC'S SILLY SCHEME IN ALASKA.... In the closing days of the U.S. Senate campaign in Alaska, it seemed obvious that Joe Miller's (R) support was fading fast, and that incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) was the front-runner, despite being a write-in candidate.

The Republican establishment started conceding last weekend that the party had all but given up on Miller. When National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman (NRSC) John Cornyn talked to ABC's "This Week," he denied abandoning Miller, but seemed reluctant to even say the candidate's name out loud, saying only, "We're supporting the nominee of our party."

Now, of course, the election has come and gone, and while it's going to take a while to go through the ballots, Murkowski appears likely to keep her seat. Republicans aren't exactly bothered by this -- the party supported Murkowski in the primary, and if/when she's declared the winner, Murkowski will caucus with her party anyway.

But that doesn't mean the NRSC can't try to use this to pry a few bucks out of their supporters. Reader C.R. forwarded me the latest fundraising appeal from the NRSC, sent out over John Cornyn's signature, and with a subject line that read, "Help Joe Miller in Alaska."

"We had a great night on election night, gaining six new seats and 13 new Senators who will come to Washington to fight for lower spending and job-creating policies from the federal government.

"But there is still one seat to be decided. Joe Miller in Alaska is dedicated to the conservative principles we need in Washington DC. But he faces the potential of a lengthy recount. And in Alaska, they are still counting votes from election day. We need to get Joe the resources he needs to win the vote count. Because we need Joe to join our fight against Barack Obama.

"Help ensure that this vote count is conducted fairly. Please click here to make a gift of $100, $75, $50, or $25 to Joe Miller's campaign.

"We remain optimistic that we will prevail in this election. But both sides are beginning to lawyer up and prepare for any possible legal fights. Joe needs your help to make sure he has enough money to make it a fair contest."

Yes, heaven forbid that rascally Republican steal the race she won from that other Republican.

This struck me as interesting for a few reasons. First, is there any chance whatsoever that the NRSC will be rushing into Alaska to help challenge a Murkowski win? No, there isn't.

Second, this is almost certainly little more than a shameless fundraising scheme, but it may also be evidence of the NRSC kowtowing to a party base that much prefers the hyper-conservative Miller to the less unhinged Murkowski.

And third, the NRSC should probably remember that Murkowski may not be especially pleased by all of this. She's probably not thrilled with how the primary shook out, and how some of her own colleagues (Jim DeMint, she's looking at you) backed Miller's challenge. Don't be too surprised if Murkowski returns to the Senate next year, and is slightly more open to Democratic outreach than she has been.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

LINDSEY GRAHAM IN A CONFRONTATIONAL MOOD.... The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't exactly been sterling successes. The center-right establishment seems to think the third time will be the charm in Iran.

Last week, David Broder presented a military confrontation with Iran as some sort of inevitability, adding that "accelerating preparations for war" with Iran will necessarily "improve" the economy. Both points were presented without support.

Now, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is singing a similar tune.

If President Barack Obama "decides to be tough with Iran beyond sanctions, I think he is going to feel a lot of Republican support for the idea that we cannot let Iran develop a nuclear weapon," he told the Halifax International Security Forum.

"The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran... Containment is off the table."

The South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic "not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime."

Sure, piece of cake. We'd no doubt go in, destroy Iran's entire military infrastructure, and be home in time for dinner. It's only a large Middle Eastern country of 75 million people, two and a half times the size of Texas, while U.S. troops continue to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. What could possibly go wrong?

Any sentence that begins, "The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but..." isn't going to end on an encouraging note.

Lindsey Graham went on to talk publicly about the likelihood of a forthcoming "period of confrontation" with China over its "cheating" currency manipulation.

If saber-rattling was evidence of wisdom, Republicans like Graham would be geniuses.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 6, 2010

WAS IT WORTH IT?.... Peggy Noonan's column in the Wall Street Journal yesterday was rather painful to read. It featured a combination of arrogance, condescension, and cheap partisan shots, but putting all of that aside, it also started with a familiar question:

'The people have spoken, the bastards." That would be how Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling. The last two years of their leadership have been rebuffed. The question for the Democratic Party: Was it worth it?

If it seems like you've been seeing those same four words -- was it worth it? -- all week, it's not your imagination. The ubiquitous question is based on the assumption that Democratic losses were the result, not of awful economic conditions, but of the party's agenda. The president and his party completed some remarkable policy achievements, but, the argument goes, those breakthroughs only pay electoral dividends if the public likes the policies. Instead, voters disapproved, strengthening the GOP "wave."

The evidence to bolster this case, rather than blaming the economy, remains thin. But for the sake of conversation, let's go with it. Let's say Democrats effectively made a giant trade -- they forfeited their House majority, and in exchange, Dems had one of the most successful congresses of the century, passing landmark legislation generations in the making.

Of course it was worth it. This is what big majorities are for.

There have been plenty of pieces making the case, and I'd recommend items from Cohn, Chait, and Sargent, among others. But I was especially struck by William Saletan's Slate piece yesterday, not only because I disagree with him from time to time, but because I was nodding in agreement when he explained, "[I]f health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election."

Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. This time, they succeeded. In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren't going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it.

And that's not counting financial regulation, economic stimulus, college lending reform, and all the other bills that became law under Pelosi. So spare me the tears and gloating about her so-called failure. If John Boehner is speaker of the House for the next 20 years, he'll be lucky to match her achievements. [...]

It's funny, in a twisted way, to read all the post-election complaints that Democrats lost because they thought only of themselves. Even the chief operating officer of the party's leading think tank, the Center for American Progress, says Obama failed to convince Americans "that he knows their jobs are as important as his." That's too bad, because Obama, Pelosi, and their congressional allies proved just the opposite. They risked their jobs -- and in many cases lost them -- to pass the health care bill. The elections were a painful defeat, and you can argue that the bill was misguided. But Democrats didn't lose the most important battle of 2010. They won it.

Call me old fashioned, but I thought the point of getting elected is to try to make a difference. Acquiring power just for the sake of having it is hollow exercise in vanity. Once in a great while, officials have an opportunity to use their power to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and make the country considerably better off.

I get the sense this week that some would have counseled Democrats to let the opportunity pass for the sake of their careers. "We didn't do much," Dems could say this week, "but at least we're still in charge."

What nonsense.

Democrats started 2009 with an abundance of political capital, which they proceeded to invest. The efforts didn't pay off on Tuesday, but the dividends for the country will be felt for years.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (76)

Bookmark and Share

BLUE DOGS AND 'IDEOLOGICAL MYOPIA'.... It was tough to keep track of all of the center-right Blue Dog Democrats who lost re-election this week. By one count the other day, the 54-member caucus was cut in half.

As a few months ago, Blue Dogs expected to be the key power brokers in a closely divided House in 2011 and 2012. Instead, they've been decimated and left largely irrelevant.

Joe Klein noted the other day that the conservative Dems contributed to their own defeats through "counter-productive" "ideological myopia."

Normally, I don't have much patience for the whining on the left about the Blue Dog democrats.... When they lose, the Democrats lose control of the Congress. This year, however, I do feel that there is an argument that, to an extent, the Dogs brought this on themselves by being penny-wise, dogpound-foolish.

The argument goes like this: a larger stimulus package might have helped the economy recover at a faster clip, but the Dogs opposed it on fiscal responsibility grounds. A second argument: the public really has had it with Wall Street, but the Dogs helped water down the financial regulatory bill, gutting the too-big-to-fail provisions. There is real merit to both points. If the stimulus had been bigger and the financial reform package clearer and stronger, the public would have had a different -- and, I believe, more positive -- sense of the President's agenda.

Klein regrettably went on to add some false equivalencies about the left, but this point about the conservative Democrats has real merit.

In fact, we can even keep going with the list of policies. Blue Dogs balked at cramdown legislation, which would have helped with the foreclosure crisis, and which their constituents would have benefited from. They also didn't care for a little something called the "public option" during the debate over health care reform.

The point is, the Blue Dogs' operated under a series of assumptions that were badly flawed. For purely ideological/philosophical reasons, conservative Dems opposed good ideas, fearing a voter backlash. As a result, policies voters would have liked either didn't happen or were watered down, generating less success.

And less success meant weaker support meant more losses.

I'm well aware of the response from conservative Dems: if we'd been more supportive of ambitious progressive legislation, we were more likely to lose.

But they lost anyway. How'd that strategy work out?

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

Bookmark and Share

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the midterm elections and exit polls, as they relate to religious differences. The shift among Roman Catholic voters seemed especially noteworthy.

Democrats lost support across most demographics on Tuesday, and exit polls showed the fall-off among certain religious constituencies was dramatic.

Among Catholics, Democrats saw an 11-point drop in support compared with 2006 and 2008, when the party took 55 percent of those voters. This year, the Republicans won 54 percent of those voters, according to an analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

All told, exit polls found that 54% of voters were Protestant, and 60% of their vote went to Republicans. Roman Catholics preferred the GOP by a 10-point margin, which was a significant shift from recent cycles. Democrats fared significantly better with everyone else, including a three-to-one advantage with minority faiths, and a two-to-one advantage among those who did not identify with a faith group.

Not surprisingly, one of the strongest demographics for the GOP was white evangelicals, 78% of whom backed Republican candidates.

Americans who attend religious services at least once a week preferred Republicans, 60% to 39%. Those who don't preferred Democrats, 54% to 44%.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is pushing a proposal for the House to do away with symbolic congressional resolutions recognizing "individuals, groups, events and institutions." That's not a bad idea, especially by Cantor standards, but the religious right probably won't like it, and might push for him to reverse course.

* In the wake of the midterm elections, the Texas Eagle Forum wants Congress to ban Muslim Americans from serving in the military , running for public office, or serving as government employees. Seriously.

* And as if the Vatican weren't in the midst of enough European controversies: "The Vatican bank has taken steps to satisfy tough EU and international norms on money laundering and terror financing after being confronted with an unprecedented crackdown by Italian prosecutors.... Prosecutors, though, aren't buying any of it. They claim that even as the bank was making such overtures, it broke the law by trying to transfer money without identifying the sender or recipient, or what the money was being used for." (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

ABOUT THOSE 'REMEDIES'.... Reader D.C. emails to remind me of this infamous exchange, featuring Nevada's defeated Senate candidate, Sharron Angle.

Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

Well, Angle lost, by an even larger-than-expected margin.

How worried should we be about a violent insurrection launched by GOP voters? With Reid winning, and Senate Democrats winning a majority for the third consecutive election cycle, are "Second Amendment remedies" on the table, or will the House Republican majority delay the overthrow of the U.S. government for another couple of years?

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

Bookmark and Share

THE 'SMELL TEST'.... ABC's "Good Morning America" ran a very good segment yesterday on the significance of President Obama's 10-day Asia trip, with George Stephanopoulos noting, "It's hard to overstate India's importance in the world," and Jake Tapper adding that the focus of the trip is on "international security, national security, terrorism, jobs, and energy."

But as the report explained very well, the seriousness of the trip has been largely overlooked by much of the political world because of nonsensical allegations trumped up by the right. The Right-Wing Noise Machine -- which includes actual members of Congress, by the way -- is basically making two allegations: the trip will cost us $200 million a day, and that 34 U.S. warships will be sent to the region as part of the presidential security. We know the attacks are demonstrably false, and ABC's report, to its credit, made absolutely clear that the right is lying. Tapper quoted officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations who said the allegations are "crazy talk."

But before we move on from this, something NBC News' Chuck Todd noted yesterday struck me as interesting. On Twitter, Todd said:

Cannot believe reports about bogus cost of president's trip didn't pass smell test with so many folks. Ridiculous that it got any traction

Now, I think Todd's right on the substance, so I don't want this to come across as criticism. It really is remarkable that manufactured garbage was taken seriously by so many, and it absolutely qualifies as "ridiculous" that idiocy like this managed to get "traction."

But is it really so hard to believe that this happened? This is just how the right has operated for as long as I can remember, especially during the Clinton years, when it was common for baseless allegations, sometimes placed in obscure foreign outlets, to ricochet from activists to talk radio to partisan media to the White House briefing room to major outlets.

Chuck Todd "cannot believe" this happened? Tragically, I find it both predictable and familiar.

Indeed, consider the past 21 months, and the bogus reports that generated traction, just because the right started a coordinated whine. Remember the freak-out over presidential bowing? Or how about the uproar over President Obama encouraging kids to do well in school (a "controversy" that ended up on the front page of the New York Times)? Or "death panels"? Or "czars"?

It's "ridiculous" that all kinds of trumped up garbage "gets traction," but no one should be surprised by it.

On a related note, President Obama's trip already appears to be paying dividends.

In accords detailed today, the White House said in a statement that Boeing Co. is finalizing a deal worth about $4.1 billion to sell C-17 military aircraft to the Indian government. The firm has also agreed the sale of 30 commercial aircraft to the Indian discount airline SpiceJet Ltd. in an order worth about $2.7 billion, according to the statement.

Obama told a meeting of U.S. and Indian CEOs in Mumbai that they represented "billions of dollars" in orders from U.S. companies and tens of thousands of jobs because of a potential that has "barely been scratched."

You'll probably hear quite a bit less about this. Call it a hunch.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

HOW WOULD THAT HELP THE ECONOMY?.... In one of my favorite movies, "Office Space," Bill Lumbergh puts up a soul-crushing banner in the middle of the workplace that reads, "Is this good for the company?" He encourages every employee to ponder this question with "every decision you make."

I'd tempted to borrow the idea and hang a similar banner is policymakers' offices that reads, "How would that help the economy?" I'd encourage every politician to ponder this question with "every decision" they make.

For example, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) noted this the other day, as part of a potential Democratic response to the midterm elections:

Democrats should support a freeze on federal hiring and pay increases. Government isn't a privileged class and cannot be immune to the times.

Reading this, I'm wondering, "How would that help the economy?" Bayh is arguing that we'd be better off if fewer unemployed workers get jobs and federal workers have less money. I'm sure he can explain why this would help the economy -- and I'm sure it's very "moderate" -- but I have no idea what that explanation might be.

Also this week, reader E.S. reminded me that an $810 million high-speed-rail corridor linking Madison and Milwaukee was put on hold in Wisconsin because Gov.-elect Scott Walker (R) doesn't like it. This will cost Wisconsin in economic development and jobs, and a train manufacturer in the state is already talking about picking up and moving elsewhere.

And so I ask again, "How would that help the economy?"

Republicans on the Hill want to scrap existing stimulus, see more public-sector job losses, shut down the government, and push the United States into default. "How would that help the economy?"

That need not be a rhetorical question.

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

Bookmark and Share

SOME HELPFUL CONTEXT, DETAILS ON OLBERMANN FLAP.... Last night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow addressed the controversy surrounding Keith Olbermann's suspension, and shed some light on the subject.

For example, there was ample discussion yesterday, here and elsewhere, about MSNBC's Joe Scarborough making campaign contributions without punishment, but Rachel noted last night that the "Morning Joe" sought and received permission from network management to do so. Likewise, many have noted that CNBC's Larry Kudlow has been a generous Republican donor, but Rachel added that NBC News restrictions don't apply to CNBC hosts.

But of particular interest was Rachel taking the time to explain in detail a point that we talked about briefly yesterday. It's "the larger point," she said, "that's going mysteriously missing from all the right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking about this."

Rachel explained, "Let this incident lay to rest forever the facile, never-true-anyway, bull-pucky, lazy conflation of Fox News and what the rest of us do for a living. I know everybody likes to say, 'Oh, that's cable news, it's all the same. Fox and MSNBC, mirror images of each other.'

"Let this lay that to rest forever. Hosts on Fox raise money on the air for Republican candidates. They endorse them explicitly; they use their Fox News profile to headline fund-raisers. Heck, there are multiple people being paid by Fox News now essentially to run as presidential candidates. If you count not just their hosts but their contributors, you are looking at a significant portion of the whole lineup of Republican presidential contenders for 2012. They can do that because there's no rule against that at Fox. They run as a political operation. We're not.

"Yes, Keith's a liberal, and so am I, and there are other people on this network whose political views are shared openly with you, our beloved viewers. But we are not a political operation. Fox is. We are a news operation. And the rules around here are part of how you know that."

That's an important point, because it's inevitable that some will use the Olbermann incident to reinforce the already-common media perception: MSNBC is the comparable bookend to Fox News. Except, of course, it's not, and the tired talking point has never made any sense anyway.

The Olbermann story doesn't reinforce the lazy media assumptions about the two networks, it debunks them.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 5, 2010

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

* Confirming suspicions: "The Yemeni branch of al-Qaida on Friday claimed responsibility for the two mail bombs sent from Yemen last week and for the downing of a cargo plane in Dubai in September."

* Pakistan: "A suicide bomber detonated an explosives-laden vest inside a mosque in northwestern Pakistan during midday prayers on Friday, according to government officials, a strike apparently aimed at worshipers who had denied support to the Taliban." At least 60 people were killed.

* The tragedy in Indonesia continues to intensify, with the volcano now responsible for 122 deaths.

* With Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) running for Minority Leader, the race is on to be Minority Whip. The current Majority Whip, James Clyburn (D-S.C.) intends to seek the job, but so does current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Keep an eye on this one.

* The White House appears to be casting President Obama's Asia trip in an economic light: "President Obama left Washington Friday for a 10-day Asia trip, vowing to 'pry some markets open' and search for other ways to bolster the struggling U.S. economy."

* Karl Rove told the attendees at a shale-gas conference this week that the incoming Republican House majority "sure as heck" won't pass legislation to limit greenhouse pollution from fossil fuels. "Climate is gone," Rove said. Somehow, I fear that sentence is correct in more ways than one.

* Harvard's David Cutler, a prominent former health care advisor to the Obama White House, expects Republicans to shut down the federal government early next year over "funding of discretionary health care." Unfortunately, I suspect he's right.

* Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) likes the Congressional Budget Office unless it tells him something he doesn't want to hear.

* Remember all of those far-right voices who were obsessed with imaginary "voter fraud" for the last several weeks? All of a sudden, in the wake of significant GOP gains in the midterms, they seem to have lost interest.

* Eugene Robinson is entirely right about Nancy Pelosi: "She's losing her job [as Speaker] not because she does it poorly but because she does it so well."

* I was planning to do some digging through exit polls over the weekend, looking for differences between 2010 and 2006 -- but it looks Kevin already did all of the hard work.

* Fox News does not "plan" to hire Christine O'Donnell as a television personality, at least not yet.

* And I was sorry to see that Marc Ambinder is giving up blogging, but I wish him well as he moves from The Atlantic to National Journal.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

A SIMPLE SENTIMENT.... About a half-century ago, actor John Wayne, who made no secret of his conservative political viewers, was asked for his thoughts after JFK defeated Richard Nixon. "I didn't vote for him," Wayne said, "but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

It's always struck me as such a basic concept, and the bare minimum of patriotism: don't root against the home team. It's one thing to disapprove of, or even actively loathe, the country's elected leaders. But rooting for their failure has never supposed to be one of the options.

Even George W. Bush seems to understand that.

"I want my President to succeed because if my President succeeds my country succeeds, and I want my country to succeed," Bush typically says when asked about Obama.

This seems to be at odds with the approach favored by congressional Republicans, who believe that if our president succeeds he might get re-elected, and the top priority should be his defeat.

And it's definitely at odds with leading Republican voices who literally started rooting for the president to fail even before the inauguration. The day before the president was sworn in, Rush Limbaugh told his audience, "I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope [President Obama] succeeds.' ... I hope Obama fails. Somebody's gotta say it."

A month later, Limbaugh, talking about efforts to revive the economy, added, "I want everything he's doing to fail... I want the stimulus package to fail.... I do not want this to succeed."

"I want my President to succeed because if my President succeeds my country succeeds, and I want my country to succeed." If only conservatives could bring themselves to understand such a simple sentiment.

Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN THE RECESSION BOTTOMED OUT.... With the nation's jobs picture starting to kinda sorta improve, Jon Chait had an interesting item earlier noting that Republicans will claim at least partial credit if/when unemployment starts falling next year.

That's a safe assumption. It's what happened in Bill Clinton's first term, and it's a mortal lock that if there's a genuine recovery going into 2012, the GOP will make the case that they had a hand in producing the result. Jon added:

This won't matter much for Obama's reelection, which largely depends on whether the economy does recover. But it does effect the story people tell themselves about what kinds of policies work and which ones don't. If you imagine that Obama won his election in 2010, at the trough of the recession, and saw unemployment fall during his presidency, and kept control of Congress through two terms, you could see a narrative of Democratic policies causing prosperity breaking through, as it did with Roosevelt. Obama, like Clinton, is unlikely to enjoy such a benefit.

This touches on a point I've been kicking around for a while: Obama really got screwed by the timing of the recession.

Kevin Drum had a terrific item on Monday, noting that "liberal progress over the past century has come in a series of very short bursts." We saw the "Progressive Era," which was soon ended by Harding and Coolidge. We saw the New Deal, but Republicans took back Congress soon after WWII and Eisenhower stunted additional progress. The Great Society produced its own backlash and gave us Reagan.

The failures of the Bush/Cheney era led to an opportunity for Obama to change the game, but his "era" was cut short after two years. Kevin speculated as to why, noting several credible explanations, including problems with expectations, the burdens of a 24/7 media environment, public disgust with Congress, and the weakness of the economy.

I think that fourth one is the most persuasive -- does anyone think Dems would have lost Congress if unemployment was 6%? -- but it's worth fleshing this out.

The "Great Recession" began in 2007, before Obama had even won the Iowa caucuses, but the economy really fell off a cliff in fall 2008. When the president took the oath in 2009, the economy was in freefall, before bottoming out last June.

The recession obviously wasn't Obama's fault, but the timing hurts. Whereas the Great Depression had more or less bottomed out before FDR took office, so he could help create (and take credit for) a real recovery, Obama saw the economy crumble, through no fault of his own, a little more after his inauguration. When the president was sworn in, for example, the unemployment rate was 7.7%. Today, it's 9.6%. Is Obama to blame for that? Not if you're sane -- the clear majority of the job losses happened well before the president's policies could even try to make things better.

The point, though, is that the timing couldn't have been worse. When Republican say the unemployment rate is higher now than before the stimulus, for example, it's idiotic, but it's also true in a deeply misleading way. The context makes all the difference, but no one seems to have time for evidence or context anymore.

So, to Jon's point, one can only wonder what conditions would have been like if Obama's election were this year, instead of '08 -- or if the recession had bottomed out in June '08, instead of June '09.

Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

THE SEARCH FOR A SINGLE STANDARD.... In 2007, MSNBC.com ran an interesting report based on extensive research of Federal Election Commission records. The goal was to identify media professionals who "made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007." The investigation found a total of 143 journalists.

One of the 143 was MSNBC's own Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress, who joined the network in 2003. Three years later, in the 2006 midterms, Scarborough contributed $4,200 to a Republican congressional candidate in Oregon named Derrick Kitts, in apparent violation of network policy.

And what was the network's response at the time?

A spokesperson for NBC, Jeremy Gaines, replied to questions sent to Scarborough. "Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts. Kitts is an old friend of Joe's. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter."

Scarborough faced no suspension. Indeed, he wasn't punished at all.

And I'm fine with that. Scarborough is not a reporter in the traditional sense, and his opinions permeate his program. I don't expect independence or neutrality from Scarborough, and whether he donates to one candidate or a hundred candidates is irrelevant. As MSNBC said at the time, he "hosts an opinion program." The donations don't affect viewers' perceptions of him as impartial, since no one considers him impartial.

So, why suspend Keith Olbermann indefinitely without pay?

Part of me can't help but wonder if MSNBC is upset with its top-rated host for some other reason, and is using this as an excuse -- a la NPR and Juan Williams -- to punish him.

Otherwise, this whole story just doesn't make any sense.

Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

OLBERMANN SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY WITHOUT PAY.... Following up on an earlier item, there's been a pretty big development in the "controversy" surrounding Keith Olbermann making three campaign contributions this campaign season.

MSNBC president Phil Griffin released the following statement Friday following the news that Keith Olbermann had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle:

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the personnel policies of NBC News, but if Politico's account is correct, Olbermann really did seem to break the network's rules. It appears to be a fairly minor infraction, but I suppose the host should have known better. A slap on the wrist, with a stern note about not doing it again, would probably be appropriate.

But an indefinite suspension without pay seems way over the top under the circumstances. We are, after all, talking about three checks -- one each for three candidates. As we talked about earlier, the MSNBC host's donations were made in his personal capacity; he disclosed his contributions; and he never encouraged others to support these campaigns.

As I understand it, the NBC News rule is intended to maintain a professional standard -- media professionals on the NBC News payroll are supposed to appear politically neutral. That's a noble intention. But the last time I checked, Keith Olbermann hosts a show with a point of view. His opinions are not only obvious, they're a key part of his program, which happens to be the highest rated on MSNBC.

As a "Countdown" viewer, I can say with confidence that I'm not surprised he cut a few checks for candidates he liked; I'm more surprised he didn't write more checks for other candidates he liked.

The network policy notes that the restrictions are necessary, because political activities may "jeopardize [employees'] standing as an impartial journalist." But therein lies the point -- those who watch Olbermann are well aware of his politics. Psst -- no one considers him "impartial."

Besides, if we're going to be sticklers for such things, I can't help but notice that Joe Scarborough has also contributed to like-minded candidates -- identified on his disclosure forms as an MSNBC host -- and Pat Buchanan has been writing some campaign checks, too. Neither faced suspension. (For the record, I don't think they should be punished, either.)

And just to reinforce the contrast, let's also remember that News Corp made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News has helped GOP candidates raise money on the air; Fox News personalities are featured guests at Republican fundraisers; while other Fox News personalities continue to help generate financial support for Republican candidates now, even after the elections.

And Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay for $7,200 in donations? Granted, NBC News and MSNBC are legitimate news outlets with professional standards News Corp and Fox News lack, but regardless, it's a reminder that today's punishment far exceeds his fairly inconsequential infractions.

Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share

PELOSI TO STAY AND FIGHT.... There was an expected series of events in the wake of House Democrats losing their majority. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would obviously have to give up her gavel, but it seemed likely she'd leave Congress altogether, too. For many, the path was almost unavoidable.

But Pelosi has a knack for defying expectations.

In the wake of Tuesday's results, the current House Speaker began working the phones, connecting with every member of the Democratic caucus, gauging members' support for her sticking around. This afternoon, Pelosi announced her plans.

Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she will run for minority leader, even as some moderate and conservative Democrats have said she should step aside. Pelosi made the announcement on Twitter: "Driven by the urgency of creating jobs & protecting #hcr, #wsr, Social Security & Medicare, I am running for Dem Leader."

In this case, "Dem Leader" is, of course, House Minority Leader -- a position Pelosi held before the Democrats took the majority in 2006.

As for what's next, one assumes that Pelosi would not pursue the job if she weren't confident she could win, but it's worth emphasizing that this won't be easy. There are at least four Blue Dog Democrats who've publicly called for a new House leader, and who won't back Pelosi's bid.

In other words, this will be the latest in a series of disputes pitting more liberal and more conservative Dems.

As for Pelosi's motivations, I'm sure the Speaker will be saying more fairly soon, but a senior Democratic aide told Roll Call,"She wants to be vindicated. She wants to win back the House. She wants to say she did it."

That's certainly a worthwhile goal for a leader -- and the Speaker has a knack for surprising those who underestimate her.

If I'm being fair, I should concede that the Blue Dogs' argument is not entirely baseless, at least in the abstract. When a caucus loses 60 seats in one cycle, forfeiting their majority in the process, it's not ridiculous to consider a change in caucus leadership.

But I'm still glad Pelosi's going to keep fighting. She's arguably the strongest, most accomplished, and most effective Speaker in a generation, and if there's a better leader in the House caucus, his or her name doesn't come to mind. She's tough as nails, and as a radicalized Republican majority gets to work, Democrats would be wise to have an experienced, resilient leader at the helm.

What's more, as Steve Kornacki noted, there is some historical precedent to keep in mind: in the 1946 midterms, Dems had a similar shellacking, losing 55 seats and their majority. Speaker Sam Rayburn became House Minority Leader until the 1948 election -- when Dems soared and reclaimed their majority in the wake of the GOP's infamous "do-nothing Congress."

Whether history can repeat itself remains to be seen.

Update: In a letter to her colleagues, Pelosi told her fellow Dems, "As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back." The Speaker isn't afraid to fight.

Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

Bookmark and Share

THE COMING FIGHT ON EDUCATION POLICY.... In theory, education policy should be an area where the Obama administration and congressional Republicans can find some common ground. In practice, however, there appears to be a big fight ahead.

The fight apparently won't be over the existence of the U.S. Department of Education, though plenty of GOP candidates included the idea in their platforms. Rep. John Kline (R) of Minnesota, poised to take over the House committee that oversees education policy, noted this week, "In some ways, that's sort of a talking point. There will be those who campaigned on that language. I'm not sure they always know what it means."

If anyone's starting a list of areas where Republicans will probably ignore the demands of Tea Party zealots, put a check next to "leave the Department of Education intact."

So, where can we expect the disputes? Access to higher ed.

"Under a Republican Congress, [the Pell Grant program] will certainly be revisited and reconsidered in a substantial way," said Moran, of AASCU. Whether that means raising eligibility standards, cutting the maximum award level or drastically reshaping the Pell program remains to be seen. A senior Republican Senate staffer echoed that view. When it comes to finding ways to cut federal student aid spending, said the Republican Senate staffer, "if John Kline doesn't fire the first volley, Paul Ryan in the budget committee is going to."

As Daniel Luzer has reported for quite a while, the Pell Grant program is already in a tough spot. Kline appears poised to make matters considerably worse.

Younger voters chose not to play much of a role in the midterms. Perhaps a big fight over Pell Grants will (a) remind these voters about the stakes; and (b) offer some added motivations for 2012.

Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

RGA'S UNDERWHELMING GAINS.... In U.S. House races, Republicans not only reclaimed the House majority, but they exceeded most expectations with a net gain of 60 (and counting). Senate wins weren't quite as impressive -- the GOP gained six seats, which was below expectations, not especially historic, and far short of what was needed for a majority.

But what about the governors' races? Going into Tuesday, this was supposed to be a breakout year for Republican gubernatorial candidates -- the RGA had effectively replaced the RNC as a fundraising powerhouse, and chairman Haley Barbour of Mississippi intended to dazzle the political world with huge wins. Larry Sabato projected the party's net gains could go as high as nine.

Like the Senate contests, the party seems to have under-performed in the gubernatorial races, too. Dave Weigel notes that the victory in Florida was "huge" -- I still can't wrap my head around the notion of electing a criminal to run a large state -- but the rest of the cycle proved underwhelming for the Republican Governors Association.

Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming were expected to be Republican wins ever since the cycle began. In Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Republicans led consistently in polling all year. Only Florida, Maine, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin were vaguely heavy carries. Those are huge wins for 2012, and some are important for redistricting.

But look at what the Democrats won. The very flawed Mark Dayton is likely to keep his lead in Minnesota. Pat Quinn -- Rod Blagojevich's lieutenant governor! -- won in Illinois. Deval Patrick survived in Massachusetts, despite being seen for a long time as a failure who presaged the Obama disappointment, and John Kitzhaber pipped rising star Chris Dudley in Oregon. Colorado, Maryland, and New York were Republican disasters, and the RGA's investment in Hawaii looks fairly weird after a 17-point drubbing.

In 1994, the GOP netted 12 governorships. This year it netted 5, and outside -- arguably -- of Florida, I don't see any upsets.

I'd just add, by the way, that the Florida win may not even matter too much when it comes to redistricting, since Floridians also easily approved a measure that would bring some sanity to the line-drawing process, and make Gov.-elect Rick Scott's (R) role far less significant.

To be sure, Republican gubernatorial candidates generally had a fine year, and will once again have a majority of the nation's governors' offices in 2011. But in light of the "wave" and what was expected of Barbour, I wouldn't be surprised if the RGA, like the NRSC, is wondering why it didn't have a better cycle.

Update: I received a note from University of Virginia's Center for Politics, which suggests Republicans had a net gain of six, not five, because Florida went from an independent governor to a GOP governor. It's not an unreasonable point, but I've been operating under the +5 assumption because Floridians elected a Republican governor, then elected a different Republican governor, so the seat didn't "change hands" in the traditional sense. Still, it's a fair argument, so I'm passing it along for readers to consider.

Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* After trailing in the polls for about a year, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D), the onetime lieutenant governor to Rod Blagojevich, managed to win a full term this week, narrowly defeating former state Sen. Bill Brady (R).

* In Minnesota's gubernatorial election, former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton (D) leads state Rep. Tom Emmer (R) by just under 9,000 votes -- out of over 2 million votes cast -- and a recount appears inevitable.

* There are apparently still some ambiguities, but it looks like Dan Malloy (D) is probably going to be Connecticut's next governor.

* In one of the U.S. House races that remained unresolved, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) was declared the winner in Arizona this morning. The net gain for Republicans, then, remains at 60 seats.

* On a related note, there are still 11 U.S. House races where we do not yet know who won.

* In Alaska, plenty of litigation will probably follow the resolution of the U.S. Senate race, and this morning, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) created a legal defense fund to bankroll her post-election fight with Joe Miller (R).

* Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who cruised to a landslide re-election win this week, announced yesterday he will not challenge Sen. Ben Nelson (D) in 2012. State Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) will very likely be Nelson's opponent.

* Nate Silver did some preliminary analysis and found that Rasmussen was 2010's least accurate pollster. On the other hand, SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac fared quite well.

* No one seems to want to be chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) for the 2012 cycle, and the caucus appears ready to beg Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to take the job he recently held.

* On a related note, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is stepping down as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) after two terms.

* And in 2012 news, Howard Dean is "absolutely, categorically" not running for president in 2012. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't running, either.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

PENTAGON BUDGET CUTS HAVE TO BE ON THE TABLE, CONT'D.... I continue to believe in a simple litmus test -- if you claim to believe in fiscal responsibility and want to cut the deficit, you can't insist that the Pentagon budget is untouchable. It's an immediate credibility killer, reflecting a fundamental lack of seriousness about the subject.

On the right, there are some disagreements on the subject. Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), for example, has said the defense budget is off the table. Sarah Palin and Bill Kristol have said the same thing.

But one of the interesting trends to watch over the next year is the extent to which Republicans are divided on this point. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), for example, took a reasonable line yesterday.

Daniels said cuts to defense spending should be on the table: "We need to take a really hard look at the missions we've undertaken."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the chamber's most far-right members, is thinking along the same lines.

Republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table.... Our nation's military leaders understand the need to cut spending.

As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "Our national debt is our biggest national security threat." History shows that every nation eventually adopts the foreign policy it can afford. Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon's sacred cows.

The right really isn't united on this one, and that's a good thing. A lot of Tea Partiers have endorsed Pentagon cuts, and we've heard some encouraging rhetoric in recent weeks from Illinois' Mark Kirk (R), Georgia's Johnny Isakson (R), and Kentucky's Rand Paul (R). Even Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, conceded recently, "The Pentagon's budget itself is not working right, so there are billions of dollars of waste you can get out of the Pentagon, lots of procurement waste. We're buying some weapons systems I would argue you don't need anymore."

Zaid Jilani noted earlier that Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey (R) and Tennessee's Bob Corker (R) are also prepared to make cuts to the defense budget.

What's more, a Sustainable Defense Task Force, led by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), but featuring 55 other lawmakers from both parties, recently sent a letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, recommending sensible, responsible cuts to the Pentagon budget.

This shouldn't even be controversial. Defense spending will top $700 billion in the next fiscal year. For so many Republicans to insist that we cut spending, but deliberately ignore the largest discretionary portion of the budget, is absurd.

The United States now spends about as much on defense as every other country on the planet combined. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, publicly and repeatedly, that the United States can't keep spending such vast amounts of money on the military indefinitely. It's simply unsustainable.

It's the first hurdle that has to be cleared for the rest of the fiscal discussion to even get underway. Those who claim credibility on the subject, but believe a bloated Pentagon budget is untouchable, shouldn't even be part of the conversation.

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

Bookmark and Share

OLBERMANN'S CHECKBOOK.... [Update: there's an important follow-up to this story]

There's a reasonable debate to be had over the propriety of media professionals donating to political candidates. I have a hunch the discussion might heat up again.

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday's election -- a potential violation of NBC's ethics policies.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 -- the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann's "Countdown" show. Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was only declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on Countdown -- one of several appearances he made on the show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions -- considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

Now, if Olbermann's employer has a policy prohibiting these kinds of contributions, I can assume the "Countdown" host should expect a call to the principal's office today. How that shakes out is between Olbermann and the folks who sign his checks.

But before Olbermann's critics get on their high horse, a little context seems appropriate. The MSNBC host donated a total of $7,200 in checks to help three candidates. He did so in his personal capacity; he disclosed his contributions; and did not encourage others to support these campaigns.

At the same time, News Corp made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News has helped GOP candidates raise money on the air; Fox News personalities are featured guests at Republican fundraisers; while other Fox News personalities continue to help generate financial support for Republican candidates now, even after the elections.

I suspect Olbermann will take some heat over $7,200 in donations, but the qualitative and quantitative differences seem relevant here.

Postscript: In the interests of disclosure, I should note that I did not financially support any candidates for public office in 2010. I also did not donate to any political party or party campaign committee.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share

FAR-RIGHT TALKING POINTS ON INDIA TRIP GENERATE PUSHBACK.... The first post-election GOP freak-out happens to be an odd one. Perhaps disappointed by the lack of voter fraud allegations, the right is seizing on President Obama's upcoming trip to India as being overly pricey.

We talked yesterday about the tantrum, and how utterly ridiculous it is. To hear Limbaugh, Fox News, and Republican lawmakers tell it, the trip will cost Americans over $200 million a day -- a figure that's not only wrong, but appears to have been made up.

The Wall Street Journal, not exactly an outlet that's friendly to the administration, described the allegations as being based on a "demonstrably incorrect" article in the foreign press. (In the 1990s, it was not uncommon for far-right activists to plant stories in international outlets, and then use them as the basis for domestic controversies.)

Yesterday, the idiocy got worse when Drudge trumpeted allegations that President Obama will be accompanied by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier.

The Pentagon was not amused.

The Pentagon did not mince words in dismissing as "absolutely absurd" and "comical" media reports from Indian news outlets that the US Navy was sending 34 warships off the coast of Mumbai as part of the security preparations for President Obama's upcoming trip to India.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell ... told reporters he was making an exception to the practice of not discussing Presidential security details to shoot down the reports. [...]

He acknowledged that a Presidential trip requiring security needs "should not come as a surprise to anyone" and that the Defense Department "does play a role in support of Presidential missions." He said it was customary to not discuss such security requests, but "I made an exception in batting down this absurd notion of there being 34 ships, or more than 10 percent of the Navy, deployed in support of this trip. That is most certainly not the case."

As Steve M. reminds us, though, that Fox News and several prominent conservative blogs continue to cite already-debunked figures as fact.

There's a reason so many Republican voters seem confused about current events -- they're lied to as a matter of course.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

PRIVATE-SECTOR JOB GROWTH.... In the previous post, we talked about the new monthly jobs report, with the chart we've all come to know and love. But following up on the tradition we started a couple of months ago, many of you have emailed to suggest it's time for a slightly different chart -- one showing just the private sector job market.

To be clear, public-sector jobs count, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. When workers lose their jobs, it's devastating for them, and it undermines economic growth for everyone -- whether the job was paid for by taxpayers or not. The problem is, the rise and fall of Census Bureau jobs can offer a skewed picture -- some months, such as May 2010, look better than they should, because the monthly total is exaggerated by hundreds of thousands of Census jobs. Other months, such as June 2010, are distorted in the other direction, looking worse than they should.

Of course, those who work for the Census Bureau count, too, and those who've lost these temp jobs will obviously want to find new employment. The point is, the gain and loss of these Census jobs were predictable and set out in advance, and don't really tell us much about the larger employment landscape.

In October, the economy added 159,000 private-sector jobs, far exceeding expectations. It's the best private-sector total since April, and the second strongest report since the start of the Great Recession in late 2007. It was also the tenth consecutive month of private-sector growth -- a streak unseen in more than three years.

All told, the economy has added more than 1.1 million private-sector jobs in 2010. For comparison purposes, note that the economy lost nearly 4.7 million private-sector jobs in 2009, and lost 3.8 million in 2008.

With that in mind, here is a different homemade chart, showing monthly job losses/gains in the private sector since the start of the Great Recession. The image makes a distinction -- red columns point to monthly job totals under the Bush administration, while blue columns point to job totals under the Obama administration. (Note: the chart reflects revised totals from August and September, per data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

privatejobs_oct10.jpg

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

Bookmark and Share

IN SURPRISING TURNAROUND, ECONOMY ADDS 150K JOBS IN OCTOBER.... John Boehner likes to ask, "Where are the jobs?" This morning, the question was a little easier to answer.

The monthly employment picture from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, released the first Friday of every month, was starting to look repetitious. From June through September, public-sector losses offset private-sector gains, and the result was an employment picture that couldn't get its head above water. Today's report on October's employment numbers was supposed to be more of the same -- economists projected a gain of just 60,000 jobs.

Thankfully, the report was far more encouraging.

Employers added the most jobs in five months in October, with the education and health care sectors leading the way.

But the unemployment rate, measured by a separate survey of households, refused to budge. It remained stuck at 9.6 percent for the third straight month.

The Labor Department says its survey of employers showed a net gain of 151,000 jobs last month, the most since May. Wall Street analysts expected a smaller gain.

This was easily the most encouraging jobs report since April. The private sector, meanwhile, added 159,000 jobs, also the strongest since April, and the second best month since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007. The public sector, which had hemorrhaged jobs over the summer, lost only 8,000 jobs, which obviously isn't good, but was better than it's been.

Also note, the numbers for August and September were both revised upwards significantly, putting the larger trend of recent months in a more positive light.

Right about now, there are countless Democratic campaign consultants screaming at their monitors, saying, "This report couldn't have come out last month?"

It's important to emphasize that the economy adding 151,000 jobs in October really is good news, but it's only a step in the right direction. Given the hole we're digging ourselves out of, coupled with population growth, the economy is going to have to generate much stronger totals to bring the unemployment rate down.

That said, this morning's report is a pleasant surprise, and offers some hope for the future. And if Fox News gives Republicans credit for this, I'm jumping out the window.

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_oct10.jpg

Steve Benen 8:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

AND THEN THERE WERE 53.... There were two unresolved U.S. Senate races going into yesterday, but last night, the close contest in the state of Washington was called in the Democrats' favor.

Senator Patty Murray of Washington State has won a fourth term, narrowly defeating her Republican challenger Dino Rossi, who conceded Thursday afternoon.

Her victory brings the number of Democratic seats in the Senate to 53, and reinforces a trend in which Democrats on the East and West Coasts were able to fight off Republican challengers while those in the South and Midwest were defeated. [...]

He conceded after Ms. Murray's lead widened with the latest vote counts from King County, home of Seattle and a trove of Democratic votes. Both The Associated Press and The Seattle Times called the race Thursday afternoon for Ms. Murray.

The outcome of the race in Alaska is still unclear, though Sen. Lisa Murkowski appears to have won, but the result won't affect the partisan makeup of the next Senate -- the remaining candidates are both Republicans.

As such, we now know that the next Senate will have a 53 to 47 Democratic majority (though two members of the Democratic caucus are independents). Democrats have now won a Senate majority for three consecutive cycles, the first time that's happened since 1992. Oddly enough, Mitch McConnell neglected to mention this yesterday when demanding that everyone respect his authority.

Also note, while Republicans defeated a whopping 49 House Democratic incumbents this week, the grand total of Senate Democratic incumbents who were defeated this week was two: Blanche Lincoln and Russ Feingold.

It's speculative, of course, but I suspect if you'd told Democratic leaders a few months ago that they would have a 53-47 majority next year, they'd not only have been surprised, they'd probably have been rather giddy.

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

Bookmark and Share
 
November 4, 2010

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

* It doesn't look like talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan are going especially well.

* The trend of the last few weeks didn't last: "The number of people seeking jobless benefits jumped sharply last week, after two straight weeks of declines."

* Not all of the economic news was discouraging: "The economy is picking up a bit from its late-summer doldrums, according to two reports Wednesday, with both the service and manufacturing sectors showing better health."

* President Obama seems to enjoy hosting these get-togethers: "In the aftermath of this week's electoral "shellacking," President Obama on Thursday invited Congressional leaders to literally break bread later this month at a dinner at the White House as he tries to adjust to a new political order with Republicans ascendant. Mr. Obama invited eight leaders, four from each party, to meet on Nov. 18 and then share a meal in the residence part of the White House."

* After such a lengthy debate over health care policy, one would like to think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) realizes the ACA lowers the deficit -- and repealing it would increase the deficit.

* Some on the far-right probably don't look forward to extending the debt limit, but even Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) seems to realize the catastrophic results of default.

* Only a handful of House Democrats actually saw their support grow over 2008 levels. Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine is one of them -- and she ran on a progressive, unapologetic platform. (Her race had been considered a "toss up," but she won by double-digits.)

* It's good to see the estimable Sam Seder back on the air.

* Ever wonder about the origins of the "landslide election" phrase? Now we know.

* For crying out loud: "The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged 'scientific fraud' behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit."

* There's some entertaining symbolism here -- Sarah Palin's video on the midterms shows a sunrise, which is actually just a sunset run backwards. Insert joke here.

* As the economy struggles, more Americans are returning to college. That, however, isn't going especially well.

* And one of the reasons I love "The Rachel Maddow Show" is that the host and her team really seem to get what I'm trying to say with my charts.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

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

Bookmark and Share

WHY WHINE ABOUT SUCCESS?.... In his speech at the Heritage Foundation today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) repeatedly complains about "bailouts." It seemed like an odd point to whine about -- in 2008, McConnell not only endorsed and voted for the financial industry bailout, he rallied other Republicans to do the same, ensuring its passage.

But he eventually elaborated on the point, objecting to the rescue of American auto manufacturers:

"[Administration officials] bailed out automakers that should have been allowed to reorganize or fail. And it shouldn't be lost on anybody, by the way, that the only one that refused a bailout, Ford, is the one that's doing best today."

Only a Republican leader would identify one of the administration's most important successes, complain about it, and fudge the details, all at the same time.

Honestly, is this really what McConnell wants to whine about? Under the Republican approach of 2008, officials were just throwing money at GM, hoping things would get better. What the Obama administration did was more serious -- instead of just giving GM money to stay afloat, the president used our money to actually purchase a stake in GM. In the process, Obama forced GM to declare bankruptcy, wiped out shareholders, and removed top managers.

Republicans insisted this would fail. They were wrong. Leaner, stronger auto manufacturers are seeing their profits grow, and they're creating jobs again, all while paying back taxpayers.

It's reached the point at which some Republicans who opposed the policy have actually tried to take credit for it.

As for Ford, it may not have been bailed out, but the company, like its American competitors, was struggling badly. If GM and Chrysler had collapsed, there's absolutely no doubt that Ford wouldn't have had the suppliers it needed to survive. Ford's executives have already acknowledged this; it's not exactly a contentious point.

If McConnell wants to complain about missteps, fine. But if the U.S. had followed his course last year, literally millions of Americans would have lost their jobs, and American manufacturing would have been devastated -- to the point from which there is no recovery.

McConnell said a lot of dumb things today. This is among the dumbest.

Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... The Washington Post ran a dispatch of sorts today, with a reporter sharing Election Day anecdotes from a variety of locales. John Cole flagged one quote from the piece, offered by a voter in Seattle, that stood out.

[I]f we'd gone to an actual party, then we would've missed a special lesson from a [Patty] Murray supporter named Buddy Foley, 65, a pianist and handler-wrangler who won't say what he handles or wrangles (besides the Stella Artois in his hand).

"Let me tell you how America works," says Foley, who wears a plaid shirt, a mallard-print tie and a woodpecker feather in his fedora. "You have Democrats voting for Democrats and Republicans voting for Republicans and then you have these people down the middle who are -- " he lowers his voice " -- undereducated, and are trying to make a living and do the best for their children, but they're so busy that they realize two weeks before an election that, 'Gee, I better start watching TV to get some news,' and by then the richest [expletives] in America have shoved their [expletiving] money into attack ads and that's what this middle group of people sees, and they vote accordingly and they're the ones who steer the country."

Hmm.

Is his assessment a little crude? Sure. Is it overly simplified? Of course. But I have to admit, I watched plenty of pundits analyzing the elections on Tuesday night, and Mr. Foley's approach is at least as credible as a lot of what I saw.

Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

DISREGARDING MANDATES.... During the campaign, I grew increasingly fascinated by Michigan's Tim Walberg (R) as one of the more ridiculous characters running for Congress in 2010. He was, for example, one of a small cadre of extremists who wore his unhinged "Birtherism" on his sleeve, in truly head-shaking ways.

Walberg was narrowly elected in '06, narrowly defeated in '08, and then narrowly elected again this week. Soon after, he talked about what he intended to do when he returned to Capitol Hill.

He said Republicans can work together to get things done with the Obama administration, but that will be up to the president. If Obama, like then-President Bill Clinton did after the 1994 midterms, responds to the mandate from voters and understands he can't disregard it, then he thinks Obama will do well. "If he doesn't, he will shut government down," Walberg said.

Now, the obvious problem here, aside from the fact that Walberg is a nut, is that we really don't need yet another congressman looking forward to shutting down the government. Threatening a shutdown unless the president does what the GOP demands is not exactly conducive to bipartisan cooperation.

But the part of this that got me thinking was the notion that it's incumbent on President Obama to honor, rather than ignore, the Republicans' mandate. Obviously, the notion of an actual GOP mandate is itself dubious -- voters seem to have backed Republicans because they were the challengers, not because they're popular.

Putting that aside, though, I'd love to know how GOP officials reconcile their cognitive dissonance. How is it that only Republican candidates are able to receive electoral mandates? Americans have elected a Democratic majority in the Senate for three consecutive elections. Do they have a mandate? President Obama won in an electoral landslide, with the highest popular vote percentage of any candidate in either party in 20 years, and the highest for a non-incumbent in 56 years. Did he get a mandate that Walberg expected Republicans to honor?

Everyone has heard the "elections have consequences" phrase, but this week is a reminder that for many on the right, it's entirely selective -- elections have consequences so long as Republicans approve of the election results.

Every GOP official popping off this week about how the Senate Democratic majority and the Democratic White House have no choice but to "listen to the voters" and give Republicans what they want, should answer two straightforward questions: (1) what were you saying the first week in November, 2008? and (2) how did you honor the Dems' mandate over the last 21 months?

Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

GOP LEADERS HOPE TO KEEP BACHMANN OUT.... The incoming House Republican majority has four leadership positions to fill, and three will probably be filled pretty easily. John Boehner (R-Ohio) will be Speaker, Eric Cantor (R-Va.) will be Majority Leader, and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is, at least for now, the only candidate for Majority Whip.

The party wisely hopes to avoid any contentious intra-party disputes, and smooth sailing for the leadership posts should help the new majority get off on the right foot.

But then there's that other leadership position. (via Matt Finkelstein)

The often fiery and always unpredictable [Michele] Bachmann, a tea party favorite, is trying to make a contest out of the battle for the Republican Conference chairmanship, a job that is critical for setting the party's message and is seen as a steppingstone to higher leadership positions.

The favorite is Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and top Republicans are making it clear that he is the insider's choice. Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia and outgoing Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana already have endorsed Hensarling, sending a clear message that if Bachmann wants the job, she's going to have to run an insurgent race for it.

I found this interesting for a couple of reasons. The first is that part of me has always wondered, "GOP leaders realize Bachmann's a lunatic, right?" With Cantor and Pence quickly throwing their support to Bachmann's rival, I have a hunch we know the answer.

The second reason, though, is that it's not entirely clear who'll win this showdown. There are about five dozen GOP freshmen on the way, and they're all pretty far out there on an ideological limb. Few feel especially indebted to the party's establishment, and they may very well think Bachmann is a brilliant Republican leader.

Would the caucus actually vote to make this deranged lawmaker a member of the House leadership, or would the new GOP majority thumb its nose at a Tea Party hero?

We should see the leadership elections during the lame-duck session. Something to keep an eye on.

Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

BEWARE OF 2012 POLLS.... To a certain extent, the 2012 presidential race got underway in early November 2008, but with the midterms having come and gone (a few stragglers notwithstanding), I suppose the chatter will be getting louder. Did you know there are only 418 shopping days until the Iowa caucuses?

With that in mind, 2012 polls will be ubiquitous for a long while.

His party got its clock cleaned in Tuesday's midterm elections, but according to a new national poll President Obama remains competitive in hypothetical 2012 presidential election matchups, especially against Sarah Palin.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday also indicates that at the unofficial start of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the field of possible contenders appears wide open with no front-runner.

In the GOP primary field, CNN shows Mike Huckabee ahead of the pack with 21%, followed by Mitt Romney with 20%, Palin with 14%, and Newt Gingrich in the mix with 12%.

As for potential general-election match-ups, CNN's poll has Obama leading Palin, 52% to 44% among registered voters, and topping Gingrich, 49% to 47%. The same poll shows Obama trailing Romney by five points, and behind Huckabee by eight points.

Also note, about one in five self-identified Democrats said someone other than Obama should be the party's presidential nominee.

My advice: ignore all of this. It's ridiculously early, and no one has the foggiest what the political landscape will look like in two years.

At this point in Bush's first term, the frontrunners for the Democratic '04 nomination were Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman.

At this point in Clinton's first term, a third of Democratic voters didn't want him to run for re-election.

At this point in Reagan's first term, a Gallup poll showed Reagan trailing then-Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) by 15 points, and behind Walter Mondale by 12 points. Immediately after the 1982 midterms, another poll showed 56% of the country did not want Reagan to seek a second term.

Something to keep in mind when you see polls relating to 2012.

Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

THE MADE-UP INDIA TRIP COSTS.... President Obama is getting ready to depart for a trip to India -- it was scheduled long before the midterm elections -- the right wants to complain about it. Apparently, it's not cheap for a U.S. delegation to travel abroad.

First, Drudge and Limbaugh started whining about a $200 million-per-day price tag. Then Glenn Beck. Then Sean Hannity.

And last night, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) got in on the act. CNN's Anderson Cooper asked her to detail the kind of spending cuts the public can expect from the new House Republican majority. She didn't answer, exactly, but Bachmann did complain about the India trip.

"Well I think we know that just within a day or so the President of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day," Bachmann said. "He's taking two thousand people with him. He'll be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are 5-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending, it's a very small example, Anderson." [...]

"But don't all Presidents take overseas trips, and stay in hotels where there's security?" Cooper asked Bachmann.

"Not, not, not at this level. We have never seen this sort of an entourage going with a President before. And I think this is an example of the massive overspending that we've seen, not only just in the last two years, but really in the last four," she responded.

When told the White House has already said these figures are wildly inflated, Bachmann suggested administration officials are lying. She had no proof.

Look, I realize the discourse can be mind-numbingly stupid at times, but this is just silly. Sometimes, presidents travel abroad on official business. It's part of an effective foreign policy, and it's not controversial. There are costs associated with these trips, but partisans usually know better than to whine incessantly about it.

For security reasons, the administration can't actually release detailed figures, but independent analyses of the right-wing claim have concluded that the allegations are "probably false" and "highly doubtful."

Given that the entire war in Afghanistan costs about $190 million a day, it seems highly unlikely this presidential visit to India will be even more expensive.

Jay Bookman described the entire argument on this "a case study in pathological lunacy." That sounds about right.

Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

Bookmark and Share

'DECOUPLING' GOING NOWHERE FAST.... The White House is making no secret of its willingness to strike a deal on Bush-era tax rates. It's built around the "decoupling" idea we talked about the other day. The problem, not surprisingly, remains congressional Republicans.

We started with two competing approaches -- extend the Bush tax rates or let them expire on schedule (as GOP officials designed them to). Dems offered a compromise -- make permanent the lower rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, while allowing Clinton-era rates to return for the wealthy. Republicans said that deal wasn't good enough.

So now we have a new compromise -- make permanent the lower rates for the middle and lower classes, and extend all of the breaks for the wealthy for a year or two.

The White House isn't just whispering about the compromise; officials are being quite open about their willingness to make the deal.

Republicans are thrilled, right? Wrong. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was asked yesterday whether he sees any room for compromise with the White House. "No, I don't," he replied. Other GOP officials are saying the same thing.

It does not bode well for future talks. As Greg Sargent explained, the deal the White House is offering is already a capitulation.

There is a way a one-year or two-year temporary extension could represent a compromise of sorts: If Republicans signal a willingness to at least entertain the idea of letting the high end cuts expire after that temporary extension. But many of them aren't doing that. Their position is that the high-end cuts need to be made permanent. Full stop. And that's fine: That's their position. It's understandable that they would stick to it.

According to Dictionary.com, the definition of "compromise" is a "settlement of differences by mutual concessions." But it's unclear what Republicans would be conceding here. If they aren't willing to signal genuine openness to a discussion about letting the high end cuts expire later -- a fair line of inquiry for reporters -- a temporary extension is merely kicking the can down the road. It's doing it the Republicans' way for now, on the understanding that we'll have this same conversation again in one or two years.

Yes, even some Democrats support this approach, on the grounds that it's the only conceivable way to ensure that the tax cuts continue for those under $250,000. It's true that this may be the only way to get that done. And Dem leaders ultimately may end up going along. But let's not call it a compromise.

Well said.

I'd just add, by the way, that the rationale behind the Republican strategy is fear. If Obama gets the middle-class tax rates now, Republicans would be forced to fight for an unpopular tax-cut plan that primarily benefits millionaires and billionaires later. They'd expect to lose, and they'd be right.

We're left with an unshakable GOP position: the permanent extension of the entirety of Bush's failed tax policy. No exceptions.

Steve Benen 12:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In one of the nation's closest gubernatorial contests, former Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) won his old job back in Oregon this week, narrowly defeating retired basketball player Chris Dudley (R), who conceded yesterday. (Interesting tidbit: the last time Kitzhaber won was in 1994 -- the last GOP "wave" election.)

* Speaking of close gubernatorial elections, former Mayor Dan Malloy (D) was declared the winner in Connecticut yesterday, narrowly defeating former Ambassador Tom Foley. This is another Dem pick-up -- Malloy will succeed incumbent Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R), who decided not to run for re-election.

* There will be no recount in Colorado's U.S. Senate race -- Ken Buck (R) conceded the race to Sen. Michael Bennet (D) yesterday afternoon.

* It may be weeks before we know the final results in the state of Washington's U.S. Senate race, but as ballots are tallied, incumbent Sen. Patty Murray's (D) lead appears to be getting a little bigger.

* And in the other undecided U.S. Senate race, it may be quite a while before we know who won in Alaska, but Scott McAdams (D) won't be in the mix -- he came in third and conceded yesterday.

* House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R) gave up his post in the GOP leadership yesterday, and apparently intends to run for governor in Indiana in 2012.

* Another interesting tidbit: after Massachusetts inexplicably elected Scott Brown (R) to the U.S. Senate, his supporters said it was the start of expanded GOP support in the Bay State. Ten months later, Democrats won every U.S. House race in Massachusetts.

* And in case you've heard rumors to the contrary, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), defeated this week, "has no interest in challenging President Obama in 2012."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

Bookmark and Share

THE LOWER CHAMBER AND THE CENTER OF GRAVITY.... When it looked like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would lose his re-election bid, there was plenty of behind-the-scenes positioning among Senate Dems to fill the likely leadership vacuum.

Of course, Reid won this week. Is there any chance we might see a leadership challenge anyway? No. Yesterday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) put an end to the speculation -- asked whether Reid has their support, the both said in near unison, "Absolutely."

In fact, Roll Call noted today that some in the Senate Democratic caucus feel "some sense of victory having survived" the midterms, and even ending up keeping their majority.

In a post-election conference call with the Democratic caucus, Senate leaders tried to impress upon their rank-and-file Members that they may be down, but they are not out. Few pundits projected the Democrats would lose the Senate in Tuesday's balloting, but many forecasted greater GOP gains and most predicted Reid would lose to tea-party-inspired challenger Sharron Angle.

Several Senators said that they were urged Wednesday to empathize with voter discontent but that they should not see the results as a reason to cave in to any and all GOP demands.

"The voters have spoken. We need to listen. We need to be gracious," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said of the private call. He added, "At the same time, we should recognize that we're not operating from a position of weakness," given that Democrats still hold the White House and the Senate majority.

That's a welcome attitude, and the piece went on to note that reforming filibuster rules remains an area of interest.

But now is probably a good time to note that the center of gravity is very likely to shift to the House for a change. For the last two years, the House has largely been an afterthought -- the practical equivalent to a "motion to proceed" for the Senate. The House had the ability to function whether the GOP minority liked it or not, so the Senate became the focus of all the attention, since it was the chamber that dictated what would become law or not.

The next Congress will have a different dynamic. Not only will there be a Republican majority in the House, it'll be a pretty big one, at least by GOP standards. To get legislation passed, the White House will have to negotiate, not with Snowe and Collins, but with Boehner and Cantor. If a bill the White House can tolerate can get through a conservative Republican House, getting Senate support for the measure shouldn't be too difficult.

There are still some responsibilities that are unique to the upper chamber -- judicial nominees, treaties, etc. -- but chances are, the political world will be obsessing less on a daily basis over what kind of mood Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and the Maine senators are in.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

ASYMMETRIC PARTISANSHIP.... I don't doubt for a moment that the White House is filled with some savvy, smart folks. But one of my biggest concerns about the next two years is that the president and his team won't appreciate the extent to which congressional Republicans have no intention of trying to govern, compromise, or work constructively on anything.

At President Obama's press conference yesterday, he used the word "compromise" three times. The phrase "common ground" came up an additional three times. The president referenced working "together" 11 times. When ABC's Jake Tapper, in the context of the debate over tax policy, asked, "So you're willing to negotiate?" the president replied, "Absolutely."

All of this sounded quite reasonable. But what I can only hope is that Obama and his team realize that Republican leaders have plans for the next Congress, and "reasonable" isn't on the menu.

There's been some talk lately about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) conceding that the "single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Let's not forget, though, he keeps saying it.

An emboldened Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday will declare that President Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012 because Republicans "can't plan" on the White House to listen to voters and cooperate on some of his party's top political priorities.

"Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office," the Senate Republican leader plans to tell the conservative Heritage Foundation, according to excerpts of his speech provided to POLITICO.

"But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," the Kentucky Republican will say. "We can hope the president will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday's election. But we can't plan on it."

As gracious as Obama was yesterday, McConnell will be antagonistic today. His prepared remarks added that he'll push for the Senate to vote "repeatedly" on repealing the Affordable Care Act

And all of this comes against the backdrop of other leading Republicans, including the upcoming House Speaker, vowing not to compromise, not to mention the GOP officials demanding a government shutdown next year.

After the 1994 midterms, Gingrich, Dole, & Co. at least had a desire to show they could pass pieces of legislation, so they had an incentive to work with the Clinton White House on some big issues, including welfare reform. But McConnell, Boehner, & Co. don't have any policy goals to speak of, and would be quite content with two years of petty gridlock.

Presidential graciousness is understandable, but it'd be a mistake to bring to bring a knife to the proverbial gunfight.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

Bookmark and Share

WHAT THEY LACK IN GOVERNING ABILITIES, THEY MAKE FOR WITH 'GUERILLA TACTICS'.... The New York Times reports today on the House Republican midterm strategy, which began to take shape 11 days before President Obama's inauguration last year. There was apparently a PowerPoint presentation that covered the "comeback" plan in some detail.

Most of it seems fairly predictable: say "no" to everything, target well, recruit effectively, etc. But this tidbit stood out:

They also tried to push Democrats into retirement, using what was described in the presentation as "guerilla tactics" like chasing Democratic members down with video cameras and pressing them to explain votes or positions. (One target, Representative Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, had to apologize for manhandling one of his inquisitors in a clip memorialized on YouTube. Only this week did Republican strategists acknowledge they were behind the episode.)

Kevin Drum's reaction was the right one:

I guess all's fair in love and politics, but seriously? One of their official strategies, memorialized in a PowerPoint presentation, was to harass Democrats with video cameras until they got so sick of politics that they just gave up? Did we really just hand over control of Congress to a bunch of seventh graders?

Yep.

I know I've mentioned this before, but just a few months ago, the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, not exactly a raging leftist, said John Boehner and his leadership team "are becoming the Bart Simpsons of Congress, gleeful at smarmy and adolescent tactics and unable and unwilling to get serious."

Voters rarely consider factors like this, but the current crop of GOP leaders make no effort to bring maturity or seriousness to their work. They're powerful children, and they're not especially embarrassed about it.

President Obama said in his inaugural address, "[T]he time has come to set aside childish things." It was the first of many presidential requests congressional Republicans decided to reflexively reject.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

A FEW THINGS FOR BUSH TO GET OFF HIS CHEST.... I'd be surprised if former President George W. Bush's new book sold especially well -- aside from a few far-right fanboys, I'm not even sure who the intended audience is -- but that's not to say it will be devoid of interesting tidbits.

Revelations have been dribbling out in recent days -- we learned earlier in the week that Bush considered dropping Cheney from the ticket in '04, for example -- and today we learned that he admits to having ordered torture.

Human rights experts have long pressed the administration of former president George W. Bush for details of who bore ultimate responsibility for approving the simulated drownings of CIA detainees, a practice that many international legal experts say was illicit torture.

In a memoir due out Tuesday, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of that coercive technique against alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission the human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.

The Bush administration's use of torture isn't exactly new, but I don't recall the president boasting previously about his direct role in the crime.

Bush also told NBC's Matt Lauer yesterday that the "all-time low" of his presidency was when rapper Kanye West said "George Bush doesn't care about black people" on live television.

At the risk of sounding picky, I find that to be truly astounding. Looking back at the tragedy of Bush's presidency, I would have thought 9/11 represented an "all-time low," or perhaps Katrina, or the start of the wars, or the collapse of the global financial system. But instead it was a mean comment from an entertainer the president doesn't even know?

Pressed on this point by Lauer, Bush responded, "No -- that -- and I also make it clear that the misery in Louisiana affected me deeply as well."

So, the effect of the Katrina devastation was on par with Kanye West's slight?

What an odd man.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share

THE LAST CHANCE ON DADT FOR A LONG WHILE.... Given the make-up of the next Congress, policymakers will have just one more chance to clear the way for repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -- and it will come during the lame-duck Senate session that begins in two weeks. If the effort fails, it will be at least two years, and probably more, before anyone can even try again.

Democrats seem to be well aware of this.

The president and the top Senate Democrat signaled Wednesday they would try during the lame-duck session at the end of the year to push for a repeal of the military ban against openly gay troops serving in the military, but the hurdles for success loom large.

The Democrats failed to get enough votes this fall to move on the repeal, but are likely to try to bring it up again after the military completes its assessment of the impact of a policy change, which is due to Defense Secretary Robert Gates by December 1.

The obstacles may prove insurmountable, but it won't take much for common sense to win this one. When the issue was considered before the Senate adjournment, Democrats needed just one GOP vote, but Republicans refused to oblige. In the lame-duck, Dems will need two GOP votes -- thanks to voters in Illinois, Mark Kirk (R) will join the Senate when it reconvenes on Nov. 15, and he's against DADT repeal.

The subject came up during a White House press conference yesterday, and President Obama reiterated his support for ending the policy, emphasizing that the "overwhelming majority of Americans feel the same way." The president also noted that the Pentagon review will be complete in about a month, which in turn "will give us time to act ... potentially during the lame duck session to change this policy."

For his part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday about the defense authorization bill, "If we can get some agreement from the Republicans that we can move the bill without a lot of extraneous amendments, I think it's something we could work out. That would be my goal."

The comments didn't exactly exude optimism.

In about a month's time, a majority of the troops, a majority of American civilians, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and two of his recent predecessors will all be saying the exact same thing: it's time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

And in all likelihood, it'll be up to Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine to decide whether the repeal effort lives or dies.

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

BEHIND THE GOP SMILES IN THE SENATE.... Throughout the modern political era, when there's a "wave" election that sweeps one party out of power in the U.S. House, it also tends to lead to a new majority in the U.S. Senate. We saw this in 2006, 1994, and 1946.

But you'll notice this trend did not hold true in 2010. Republicans hoped to take back the Senate -- a week ago, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) practically guaranteed it would happen -- but fell far short. While several pre-election forecasts showed them gaining eight seats, and some party leaders predicted a net gain of nine, at this point, it looks like they picked up six.

To be sure, a six-seat pick-up is hardly a bad cycle. On the contrary, it's a significant turn-around for the GOP. But it looks rather puny compared to the party's House gains, and as a historical matter, six seats isn't especially extraordinary. It doesn't even match the party's 1994 gains.

And yesterday, some of the Republican frustrations about this worked their way to the surface.

Long-simmering tensions within the Republican Party spilled into public view Wednesday as the pragmatic and conservative wings of the GOP blamed each other in blunt terms for the party's failure to capture the Senate.

With tea party-backed candidates going down in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada, depriving Republicans of what would have been a 50-50 Senate, a bloc of prominent senators and operatives said party purists like Sarah Palin and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) had foolishly pushed nominees too conservative to win in politically competitive states.

Movement conservatives pointed the finger right back at the establishment, accusing the National Republican Senatorial Committee of squandering millions on a California race that wasn't close at the expense of offering additional aid in places like Colorado, Nevada and Washington state, where Democratic Sen. Patty Murray holds a narrow lead as the votes continue to be counted.

I'm not inclined to interfere with the intra-party squabbling, but can't they both be right?

The "pragmatic" wing is right that Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada were entirely winnable, but thanks to the Palin/DeMint crowd, some of the year's most extreme candidates won GOP nominations and lost. As a consequence, what would have been a 50-50 Senate split next year will be a 53-seat majority for Democrats. (Trying to get Lieberman and Nelson to switch wouldn't even make a difference.)

"Candidates matter," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "It was a good night for Republicans but it could have been a better one. We left some on the table."

The "purist" wing is also right that the National Republic Senatorial Committee invested $3 million of scarce resources into California's Senate race for no apparent reason. Party officials seemed to think Carly Fiorina (R) really could pull the upset, but the NRSC was wildly wrong -- she lost by a wide margin. Could that $3 million have made more of a difference in, say, Colorado and Washington? Probably.

I'd be surprised if these disputes lingered too much longer -- the Senate Republican caucus has a wrecking ball to polish -- but the fight is something to keep an eye on. At a minimum, the party is already putting plans for 2012 in place, and if they conclude the 2010 strategy was flawed, they'll try to correct it.

Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 3, 2010

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

* The long-awaited QE2: "The Federal Reserve, concerned about the slow recovery, announced a second, large purchase of Treasury bonds on Wednesday, an effort to spur economic growth by lowering long-term interest rates.... The Fed said it would buy an additional $600 billion in long-term Treasury securities by the end of June 2011, somewhat more than the $300 billion to $500 billion that many in the markets had expected."

* Paul Krugman doesn't seem especially impressed with the move.

* Austerity measures not popular with some Greeks: "After a season of bitter and widespread protests over austerity measures to address its financial crisis, Greece faced new turmoil on Wednesday as the authorities investigated an elaborate bomb plot in which relatively mild explosive devices were sent to embassies in Athens as well as to the leaders of Italy and Germany." Prime Minister George Papandreou said the letter bombs were the work of domestic terrorists, not al Qaeda.

* Three weeks, five shootings: "A fifth shooting at a U.S. military facility in Northern Virginia in recent days has been linked to the same weapon, authorities said Wednesday."

* Solid auto sales: "October was the best month for new-vehicle sales in more than two years, outside of the government rebate program in mid-2009, and General Motors surpassed expectations, but still lost market share in the United States ahead of its public stock offering."

* For crying out loud: "Both sides are claiming victory in Virginia-11, Rep. Gerry Connolly's seat. And one of the three members of the canvassing board that's overseeing the counting is none other than Hans von Spakovsky, the vote fraud bamboozler and vote suppression macher who became such a TPM favorite during the US Attorney firing days."

* Colorado's odious "fetal personhood" amendment went down in flames yesterday. Good.

* It was heartening to see Prop 23 lose in California, too.

* Several dozen House Dems lost last night, but not all of them were running under the same conditions. Dave Weigel has a smart piece on the four different types of Dems who were defeated.

* Fox News intended to do a big special tomorrow on imaginary "voter fraud" in Nevada. After Sharron Angle's (R) embarrassing defeat, the Republican network has cancelled the program.

* No doubt: "The 112th United States Congress will be a very different place for higher education issues."

* And while I'm not generally pleased with Chris Matthews' work, I was delighted to hear him ask Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) last night, "Has someone hypnotized you?"

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

Bookmark and Share

HEALTH CARE AND 'THE NEXT TWO YEARS'.... It's safe to assume that House Republicans will, sometime next year, launch some sort of effort to "repeal" the Affordable Care Act. The White House is already signaling today that it's open to compromise on a variety of fronts, but this repeal nonsense is a non-starter.

At his press conference this afternoon, President Obama noted in his opening remarks, "[W]ith so much at stake, what the American people don't want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two." Health care wasn't mentioned specifically, but likely was what he was referencing.

It came up again soon after, with a reporter asking whether the ACA "is in danger at this point," given GOP support for scrapping the law. The president reiterated:

"Well, I know that there's some Republican candidates who won last night who feel very strongly about it. I'm sure that this will be an issue that comes up in discussions with the Republican leadership. As I said before, though, I think we'd be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments that we had over the last two years."

What's more, not long after the press conference, the White House sent around some talking points, making clear the president has no intention of letting the GOP roll back this milestone legislative accomplishment.

"It would be a mistake to spend the next two years re-fighting the political battles of the last two years. The President is proud of the progress we have made for average Americans -- from health care reform, to financial reform and reforms to our education system. While he has always made it clear that he is open to ideas from both sides of the aisle to improve these important new laws, he will not accept attempts to repeal or weaken them."

A couple of angles to keep an eye on here. The first is that the president clearly doesn't seem inclined to budge on this. If Boehner & Co. think Obama will be pushed around on health care, and that with the right leverage, repeal is an option, they're mistaken.

The second is this general framework: re-fighting the battles of the past is a mistake. I get the sense the White House is working on a larger message here -- all Republicans want to do is fight over things that happened in the past, instead of focusing on the future -- which may come up quite a bit in the coming months.

This isn't to say health care tweaks are out of the question, and the president brought up "the 1099 provision" today as "something that we should take a look at." But the underlying message to Republicans intending to push for some wholesale overhaul seemed to be pretty straightforward: don't bother.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

WITH GREAT POWER.... House Republican will soon have what they've been lacking: power. But with that power comes responsibilities, and it's hard to feel any optimism about whether this crop of GOP leaders is prepared to take their duties seriously.

For one thing, it's far from clear whether the incoming Republican majority has any idea what it's doing. Mark Schmitt noted today:

There have been three major Republican/conservative takeover elections in recent history: 1980, when Ronald Reagan carried 12 seats and control of the Senate; 1994, when Newt Gingrich's Republicans took both houses; and 2010. The first, while in many ways a reaction to the incompetent presidency of Jimmy Carter (a conservative Democrat whose flaws came to symbolize liberalism) unquestionably carried a mandate for conservatism. The second, 1994, was in many ways a reaction to congressional corruption, combined with a long-postponed rejection of Southern Democrats, but Gingrich and his allies took it very seriously -- perhaps too seriously -- as an ideological mandate.

This year, though, right-wingers barely even pretended to have a comparable program-cutting agenda. Their main talking point about health reform was that it would cut Medicare benefits. They railed about TARP and the auto bailout, but the former originated in the Bush administration, and they will not attempt to repeal it. They talked about creating jobs by reducing the deficit, which is economic nonsense. Moreover, not one of the policy plans the Republicans produced would reduce the deficit by a penny. Tea Partiers ranted about constitutional and economic schemes that they probably won't even introduce, much less pass.

I've been following developments at the granular level for quite a while, and I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what kind of agenda the GOP intends to pursue. They're against spending, but no one knows what they'd cut. They're against health care reform, but it's not clear what they can do about it, and no one seriously wants another lengthy fight over health care policy anyway.

They're for a government shutdown, but I'm not sure why. They're toying with letting the country slip into default, but the motivations for that are even less clear. They're no doubt looking forward to some partisan witch hunts, which are already tiresome before even beginning.

I've received some very nice notes today from readers wanting to know how I'm feeling today. In truth, I wouldn't say I'm disappointed, but that's only because I largely expected the results we received.

Instead, I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated about some exceptional lawmakers losing their jobs for no good reason. I'm frustrated about the role of secret money in the elections. I'm frustrated that there's so much idiocy in the discourse -- people think Obama raised taxes, bailed out Wall Street, and socialized health care, all of which is completely at odds with reality -- and that too many people believe it. I'm frustrated about voters saying they want all kinds of things -- less gridlock, fewer candidates beholden to special interests -- and then deliberately choosing the opposite.

I'm frustrated that, after two years of digging out of a ditch Republicans put us in, the country is ready to take the next productive step forward, and now that's impossible. I'm frustrated that the economy desperately needs additional investments to create jobs, but that's impossible, too. I'm frustrated that Republican leaders seem to be making no real effort to hide the fact that they prioritize destroying the president over literally everything else.

But most of all, I'm frustrated that there are no meaningful consequences for successes and failures. Republicans began last year as an embarrassed and discredited minority, and proceeded to play as destructive a role as humanly possible as Democrats tried to clean up their mess. GOP officials refused to take policymaking seriously; they refused to work in good faith; they refused to offer coherent solutions; they even refused to accept responsibility for their own catastrophic mistakes.

They've proven themselves wholly unprepared to govern, but have been rewarded with power anyway. It's ... frustrating.

Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

Bookmark and Share

OKLAHOMA BARS IMAGINARY SHARIA THREAT.... I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention how very silly this is.

Oklahoma on Tuesday approved a ballot measure blocking judges from considering Islamic or international law when making a ruling.

Nearly 70 percent of voters in the state cast ballots approving the measure.

The proposition's sponsor, Republican Rex Duncan, told reporters Tuesday that the proposition is a "preemptive strike" against judges who he worries could be "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."

I actually like "preemptive strike" as a clever euphemism for "threat that does not exist."

Indeed, what proponents of this nonsense apparently forgot is that we already have a law that would prohibit U.S. officials from imposing religious rules on Americans through court orders. It's called the First Amendment.

CNN noted that legal experts have taken a look at the Oklahoma measure, and have concluded it's a "mess."

There has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied, said Rick Tepker, the first member of the University of Oklahoma School of Law faculty to try a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tepker called the passage of the measure "a mess" with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he said. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

In June, Duncan explained that he was pushing his measure to prevent "liberal judges" who want to "undermine those founding principles" of America. (If Duncan thinks liberals like the precepts of Sharia law, he doesn't know any liberals -- or anything about Sharia law.)

Asked at the time if there's any danger that a judge might actually issue uch a ruling, the right-wing state lawmaker conceded on MSNBC that it's never happened, but added, "[I]t's not just a danger. It's a reality.... This is a war for the survival of America."

He wasn't kidding. What's more, his little gambit passed.

I'm reminded of something digby said when this first came up: "Somebody's got to stop all those liberal judges from imposing ultra-conservative Sharia Law and stoning gays and women who stray from God's path. Oh wait...what are we talking about again?"

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

A SETBACK FOR JUSTICE IN IOWA.... As engaged as far-right groups were in the midterm elections, there was a special focus, especially within the religious right, on the Iowa Supreme Court.

Their efforts, driven by anti-gay animus, paid dividends.

Voters in Iowa chose to remove three high court justices who helped make Iowa the first Midwestern state to permit same-sex marriage.

The vote marks the first time a member of the Iowa Supreme Court has been rejected by the voters under the current system that began in 1962.

Under the voting system in Iowa, each of the three justices up for retention -- Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit -- needed simply to get more "yes" votes than "no" votes in the election to be elected for another eight-year term. They faced no opponents. None of the judges raised money for the campaign.

While all seven justices on the court ruled with Ternus, Baker and Streit, those three were the only ones whose seats were up for retention. None of them received the 50 percent "yes" vote needed to remain on the bench.

Right-wing activists are celebrating, claiming to have performed "God's will."

As a rule, those who seek to punish others based on their interpretation of "God's will" are playing with fire, but in this case, it's nonsensical anyway. The fate of these judges, who had the audacity to read the law correctly, was Iowans' will, and as we saw yesterday, a few too many of these Iowans have let their anti-gay attitudes cloud their judgment.

Rachel Slajda has more on the larger context of the showdown, and just how extensive the right's effort was.

Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court's seven justices voted unanimously to legalize same-sex marriage in the state, making them a target of groups like the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association and the Family Research Council, who declared the ruling a case of gross judicial activism and usurpation of power.

The groups spent more than $700,000 to convince voters to kick the judges out, funding a statewide "Judge Bus" tour, radio ads, TV ads, text messages and polling. Even Citizens United chipped in $18,000 at almost the last minute.

For what it's worth, state lawmakers in Vermont voted to approve marriage equality in the state -- the first legislature to do so without a court order -- and the Democratic majority that made it happen was re-elected with ease yesterday.

Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (EXCEPT WHEN THEY DON'T SHOW UP).... Looking through the exit polls from yesterday, getting a sense of exactly why Democrats had such a miserable cycle, it's worth paying careful attention to the generational differences.

Dems shed a lot of support in these elections, but they did pretty well maintaining the support of younger voters -- among voters aged 18 to 24, Dems thrived, winning 58% of the vote. Among those aged 25 to 29, Dems did nearly as well. Democrats got slammed, however, by seniors.

That's not especially new -- in 2008, the numbers were pretty similar. The difference was who showed up. Ezra Klein noted:

The gender breakdown didn't change much. And nor did the racial breakdown. But the age of the electorate changed dramatically: Seniors went from 16 percent in 2008 to 23 percent in 2010, while voters between 18 and 29 fell from 18 percent in 2008 to 11 percent in 2009. Seniors, of course, are the most conservative voters -- they were the only age group to back John McCain in 2008. And young voters are the most liberal. They were the only age group that favored Democrats yesterday.

There's going to be a lot of soul-searching among Democrats after this election. Most of it will be about whether they should've been more liberal or more conservative, more ambitious or more modest, more confident or more empathic. But perhaps the most important question isn't what they could've done to make more Americans like them, but what they could've done to get more young voters to the polls.

Of course, once Republicans start pushing for cuts in education, and targeting Medicare and Social Security, both age groups may not be especially satisfied with the results of the voting behavior.

Nevertheless, when the electorate is older and whiter, that's a recipe for massive GOP gains.

Looking ahead, you can count on Dems going out of their way to try to mobilize younger voters in 2012.

Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

GOV.-ELECT RICK SCOTT.... After having been born and raised in Florida, I've come to expect a certain amount of madness from the state, especially when it comes to politics. But I honestly thought Floridians' judgment wasn't quite this bad.

Wealthy businessman Rick Scott (R) will be the next governor of Florida after state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) conceded this morning, handing Republicans a victory in one of the marquee gubernatorial contests in the country.

Sink's concession came as raw vote totals showed her trailing Scott by roughly 50,000 votes out of more than five million cast. [...]

Scott's victory also has major implications for the 2011 congressional redistricting as the Sunshine State is slated to gain two seats and Republicans now control the governorship as well as the state House and state Senate.

Rick Scott is, of course, best known as the disgraced 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 at a different health care company he created.

When the initial HCA scandal broke, and Scott was forced to give a deposition about his role, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment -- 75 times. After the second fraud scandal broke, Scott gave another deposition just days before he announced his gubernatorial campaign, but refused to let the public know what he said.

And despite his scandals and alleged crimes, and the fact that he's never held any public office and at any level, Rick Scot will now be the chief executive of one of the nation's largest states.

Usually, far-right Republicans get elected and then become criminals. It's not every day an apparent crook gets caught and then gets elected.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In one of the two undecided U.S. Senate races, it looks like Sen. Patty Murray (D) will hang on and win another term in the state of Washington.

* In the other undecided contest, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) appears to have the advantage, despite being a write-in candidate, but it will reportedly be "weeks" until there's some certainty about the outcome.

* In Minnesota, which has some recent history when it comes to recounts, yesterday's gubernatorial race was pretty darn close. At this point, with nearly all of the precincts reporting, Mark Dayton (D) leads Tom Emmer (R) by 0.43%. If the finish within 0.5%, an automatic hand recount will get underway.

* Speaking of extremely close gubernatorial contests, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) "believes" he's won, but his GOP challenger has not conceded. About 11,100 votes separate the two out of 3.57 million votes cast.

* When thinking about post-census re-districting, remember that Republicans won 18 state legislative chambers yesterday, which they'll no doubt take full advantage of when drawing district lines.

* In Vermont's gubernatorial race, which was too close to call last night, Peter Shumlin (D) appears to have come out on top. It's a Dem pick-up, flipping the governor's office from "red" to "blue."

* Speaking of New England, Maine's gubernatorial race was pretty close, but Paul LePage (R) narrowly won.

* In what proved to be one of the closes House races in the country, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) won re-election by just 121 votes in California's 11th.

* And while several pollsters fared quite well yesterday, Rasmussen wasn't one of them. It's a reminder of why I've stopped citing Rasmussen data on this site.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

GETTING TO KNOW SOME OF THE REPRESENTATIVES- ELECT.... About a week ago, Salon ran an interesting item, headlined, "The 10 most terrifying would-be congressmen." I put it aside with a little note to myself: "Check to see how many of these nutjobs actually win."

The answer: half of them.

Salon's Justin Elliott and Mark Benjamin explained they "looked around and identified the 10 Republican House candidates with the most bizarre, unnerving and downright alarming baggage who just might sneak through." As of this morning, Tom Ganley (R) in Ohio's 13th, Jeff Perry (R) in Massachusetts' 10th, Brad Zaun (R) in Iowa's 3rd, and Ilario Pantano (R) in North Carolina's 7th have all lost, while Jesse Kelly (R) in Arizona's 8th appears to be losing in a not-yet-called race.

So, which of the five "most terrifying would-be congressmen" won? Some real doozies:

Allen West (R) in Florida's 22nd

West first gained notoriety during his military service in Iraq, when he was forced to retire from the Army for engaging in abusive interrogation techniques. More recently, he's incorporated violent rhetoric into his campaign speeches, and made demonstrably ridiculous claims about his own background. Last month, we learned about West's ties to a violent gang of criminals, which the Justice Department believes is involved in drug running, arson, prostitution, robbery, and murder. Yesterday, he won by eight points.

Renee Ellmers in North Carolina's 2nd

Ellmers is perhaps best known for running on a virulently anti-Muslim platform, and based much of her advertising on her opposition to the Park51 project (which is nowhere near her district). In September, she appeared utterly humiliated during an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, but nevertheless narrowly won yesterday.

Austin Scott in Georgia's 8th

Scott ran on a platform that would, among other things, push mandatory drug testing for those Americans who receive unemployment benefits. He won by five points.

Scott DesJarlais in Tennessee's 4th

Roll Call reported a couple of months ago that DesJarlais, during a messy break-up with his ex-wife, allegedly held a gun in his mouth for three hours and was accused of spousal abuse. He nevertheless defeated incumbent Rep. Lincoln Davis (D) yesterday in a landslide.

Ben Quayle in Arizona's 3rd

Quayle, the son of the ridiculed former V.P., is perhaps best known for having contributed to a raunchy, sex-themed website -- and then lying about it. Yesterday, he won by double-digits.

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

BENNET HANGS ON IN COLORADO.... Dems looking for good midterm news got some this morning in Colorado.

Appointed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet will be elected to the U.S. Senate after pulling ahead of challenger Ken Buck this morning. [...]

Bennet, a relative political unknown when Gov. Bill Ritter plucked him from his job as Denver Public Schools chief and appointed him to the post 22 months ago, benefitted from his time in Washington to establish a solid financial base for what proved a costly campaign. He raised $6 million alone to fend off primary challenger Andrew Romanoff.

Buck, the Weld County District Attorney, tapped into the anti-incumbent anger of the Tea Party movement for early momentum and a primary win over Jane Norton before moving toward the center on several issues for the general election.

A recount appears likely in the contest*, but the numbers look good for Bennet, in a race pre-election polls suggested was the closest in the country.

This is, by the way, another example that fits into a larger model -- Bennet was in very deep trouble, but appears to have won thanks to Republicans nominating an extremist that made just enough mainstream voters uncomfortable.

Party leaders had hoped Buck would lose the primary. Now, it seems he's lost the general election.

* Update: Actually, scratch that. A recount would start if Bennet's margin was under about 3,900 votes, but at this point, it's around 7,000. There are thousands of ballots that have not yet been counted, but they're in a Democratic area of the state.

Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

SOME VISUAL CONTEXT.... It's not unfair for Republicans to characterize the midterms as "historic," at least as far as the House is concerned. The GOP not only made massive gains, they'll enjoy their largest House majority next year in more than six decades.

But as is my habit, I thought I'd put the elections in charts. Here, for example, are the midterms of the modern political era, with losses per cycle for the president's party (blue columns represent Democratic presidents, red columns represent Republican presidents).

housemidterms.jpg

You'll notice, of course, that the 2010 midterms were the worst for any incumbent president's party since FDR's drubbing in 1938. Also note, this chart only reflects the results of yesterday's elections through the available data. (Several House races have not yet been called, so the results may yet get slightly worse for Dems, though it does not appear they'll match the 1938 totals.)

On the other hand, Senate losses for the White House's party -- at this point, it looks like Dems have lost six seats from their majority -- were fairly mild by modern standards. Indeed, while Obama's House losses were greater than Clinton's, Clinton's Senate losses were greater than Obama's.

senatemidterms.jpg

In some cases, the results are a little misleading, in part because the president's party went into a midterm cycle with smaller congressional minorities, and didn't have much further to drop.

That said, I think the visual context helps.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

REPLACING AN UNPOPULAR PARTY WITH AN EVEN MORE UNPOPULAR PARTY.... In mid-September, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) was elaborating on why he wanted to force a confrontation with the White House next year that would lead to a government shutdown.

"If we take the majority, that should be a good indication to the president that the American people have not agreed with his policy and his platform," Westmoreland said. "And that they agree with ours."

This may very well be a common sentiment in GOP circles today -- Republicans won, the argument goes, so they have a mandate.

But there's ample reason for skepticism. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite is true -- for the first time in memory, voters have punished an unpopular party and rewarded an even more unpopular party.

The exit polls tell an interesting story: 41% of voters yesterday had a favorable opinion of congressional Republicans. Congressional Democrats weren't winning any popularity contests, but their favorable numbers were slightly better than the GOP's, while President Obama fared better than both. In other words, Republicans won yesterday despite the public's impressions of the party, not because of.

Such a result does not a mandate make.

In fact, one of the very first arguments we're likely to hear from House Republicans is that the election results were an endorsement of their tax-cut plans. But, again, look at the exit polls -- in the midst of a GOP wave election, a majority of voters said they oppose the Republican proposal to extend all Bush-era tax rates.

Think about that: the same electorate that delivered a massive win for GOP candidates also said the GOP tax plan is a mistake.

So, how'd Republicans manage to do so well? Try this exit-poll result on for size:

Who's to blame for the economy? Bankers (34%), Bush (29%), Obama (24%). Of those who blame bankers, Republicans hold an 11 point advantage.

That's strikingly crazy. Americans are inclined to blame Wall Street for the economy, but then voted for the party that cozied up to Wall Street, fought to kill financial regulatory reform, partnered with Wall Street lobbyists, and literally ran candidates for key offices who worked for and with the banks.

It's quite a trick the GOP pulled off.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share

SO, THAT HAPPENED.... After several hundred House, Senate, gubernatorial, and down-ballot races yesterday, the search for What It All Means is a fool's errand. The evident trends have counter-trends; prominent examples have counter-examples. What I suspect will be one of the day's more entertaining parlor games is various political contingents insisting that they know exactly how to interpret all of these results -- and wouldn't you know it, the results prove how right they are.

That's not to say, however, there weren't important developments last night. There obviously were.

There was, as expected, a fairly intense Republican wave -- strong enough to deliver a net gain of 60 House seats (and counting) to the incoming GOP majority, but not strong enough to give Republicans the Senate. Given expectations going into yesterday, Dems who fully expected to lose the House may even wake up this morning feeling a little relieved that the results weren't worse.

Indeed, just below the surface of Republicans' hard-earned jubilation is likely some widespread teeth-gnashing -- specifically directed at Tea Party zealots and their boosters. Had it not been for their ideological rigidity and propensity for nominating extremist candidates, the Senate would very likely be in GOP hands next year -- Tea Partiers cost Republicans Senate seats in Delaware, Nevada, and probably Colorado, while making the GOP invest heavily in states like Kentucky that would have otherwise been won easily.

And at this point, let's also pause to note the marvel of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D) re-election in Nevada. A year ago, he was the electoral Dead Man Walking, but thanks to the GOP's far-right base, Reid arguably faced the only candidate in Nevada he could defeat -- and ended up winning fairly easily.

And what of the House? For Dems, it was obviously ugly. Conservative Blue Dog Democrats, in particular, took it on the chin, seeing their 54-member caucus shrink to just 22. The result leaves Dems about where there were before their own wave of 2006 -- the party made big House gains in the last two cycles, only to see them entirely washed away last night.

Can all of this be chalked up to a bad economy? I think a lot of it can, but not entirely. You're going to hear quite a bit today about the "structural" reasons Dems fared poorly, and there's clearly something to this -- when the economy stinks, the majority party suffers; when the economy suffers a generational trauma, the majority party suffers a lot.

But at this point, that's probably not enough to explain the entirety of the Dems' House drubbing. Some of what we saw can also be chalked up to "red" districts returning to their natural, post-Bush conditions, not to mention the apparent the enthusiasm gap that gave Republican a real edge.

We'll have plenty more on the elections throughout the day, but for now, I thought it best to note an observation a friend of mine made a few months ago: the lesson of the GOP's 2010 comeback is that if you're going to fail, fail so spectacularly that your successors can't possibly fix anything in time.

For some reason, that point has resonated with me from the moment I saw it. You can probably imagine why.

Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

ELECTION NIGHT, SIXTH AND FINAL THREAD.... I'm getting pretty tired, so let's say this is the last thread for the night.

12:00: AP is calling Pennsylvania's Senate race for Pat Toomey (R).

12:01: Looks like John Kasich (R) held on to win Ohio's gubernatorial race.

12:01: The thing about the Toomey and Kasich victories is that, earlier tonight, they looked surprisingly encouraging for Dems. Even though polls predicted both outcomes, the initial hopes make the defeats a little tougher for Democrats to swallow.

12:04: Not that the outcome was in doubt, but Sen. Daniel Inouye (D) has won re-election in Hawaii.

12:11: While his campaign was initially reluctant to concede, even after news outlets started calling it, Russ Feingold has conceded in Wisconsin.

12:16: Part of me thought the polls were wrong and Illinois voters would do the right thing. Apparently not -- the AP and MSNBC are calling the U.S. Senate race for Mark Kirk (R).

12:20: Keep in mind, while most of these Senate races will elect members who'll begin serving next year, Illinois' Kirk will join much sooner and vote in the lame-duck session. The 59-41 Senate will quickly become the 58-42 Senate before this Congress wraps up its work. Kirk is in a position, then, to screw up all kinds of important measures.

12:23: I guess that debate performance didn't bother voters as much as I'd hoped -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) won another term.

12:25: I'm afraid I just can't keep my eyes open, so I'm off until morning. Plenty of questions to keep an eye on for those of you still watching returns come in: Can Harry Reid (D) hang on in Nevada? Can Michael Bennet (D) hang on in Colorado? How about Patty Murray (D) in the state of Washington? Did Florida really elect a criminal to be its governor? When can we expect a result out of Alaska? Will House GOP gains get to 70?

See you in the morning.

Steve Benen 12:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 2, 2010

ELECTION NIGHT, FIFTH THREAD.... Where does the time go? It seems like just an hour ago, we were starting our fourth thread. Oh wait...

11:02: Some outlets are already prepared to call California's gubernatorial race for Jerry Brown (D).

11:05: In the never-really-competitive category, everyone is calling Idaho's Senate race for incumbent Mike Crapo (R) and Oregon's Senate race for incumbent Ron Wyden (D). I've always liked Wyden, and it's nice to see a progressive win without breaking a sweat.

11:08: Being the House Budget Committee chairman apparently didn't help John Spratt (D) in South Carolina's 5th -- he lost.

11:12: CNN is noting that the Senate will be without a single African-American member next year. There's only one now -- Roland Burris of Illinois -- and he didn't run for a full term.

11:15: Tom Corbett (R) has won Pennsylvania's gubernatorial election. Not a surprise, though the polls did show a tighter race in the campaign's closing weeks.

11:19: The race was a real long-shot for Dems anyway, but I suppose it's worth noting that Michele Bachmann (R) has won re-election in Minnesota's 6th.

11:22: In New Mexico's gubernatorial race, Susana Martinez (R) appears to have beaten Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (D). Rumor has it Martinez was recruited directly by Karl Rove.

11:25: Given the polls and the Senate race, this was entirely predictable, but Scott Walker (R) has won Wisconsin's gubernatorial race.

11:27: I'm genuinely curious to see the price-per-vote ratio in California's gubernatorial race. Whitman, the last time I checked, had spent 10 gajillion dollars -- only to lose.

11:33: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) appears to have won re-election in California. In case this wasn't obvious before, Republicans aren't taking back the Senate.

11:37: In Utah's U.S. Senate race, Mike Lee (R), who seems a little too anxious to shut down the government next year, easily won.

11:39: About a week ago, the National Republican Senatorial Committee decided to invest a few million dollars in California, rather than other states that seemed more competitive. It seemed like a dumb move at the time, and it seems like a dumb move now.

11:48: More heartbreakers for House Dems -- Etheridge loses in North Carolina, Pomeroy loses in North Dakota, Klein loses in Florida, and Space loses in Ohio.

11:55: Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the Republican-turned-independent, won Rhode Island's gubernatorial race tonight. Democrat Frank Caprio, who looked well positioned as recently as September, probably wishes he could take back that "shove it" line.

Steve Benen 11:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

ELECTION NIGHT, FOURTH THREAD.... Yes, I'm doing one of these per hour. It seemed more manageable than having one enormous thread for the night.

10:00: Rep. Mary Fallin (R) appears to have won Oklahoma's gubernatorial race without too much trouble. It's a gubernatorial pick-up for the GOP.

10:02: More easy calls are announced -- John McCain (R) won re-election in Arizona, and Chuck Grassley (R) won re-election in Iowa.

10:06: You know, that gubernatorial race in South Carolina is looking a lot closer than expected. Remind me: how many times was Haley on the cover of Newsweek this year? If she loses, I guess the talk about her as a V.P. candidate will probably fade a bit.

10:12: DNC Chairman Tim Kaine is telling reporters that Dems will, in fact, lose the House.

10:16: In a pleasant surprise for Dems, Rep. Larry Kissell (D) appears to have overcome GOP targeting and won in North Carolina's 8th. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) wasn't as fortunate in Pennsylvania's 11th, where the incumbent lost.

10:21: Recent polling showed Colorado's gubernatorial race getting pretty close, but MSNBC is calling it for Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D). His top challenger was former Rep. Tom Tancredo, running as an independent, who is one of only a handful of American politicians I find genuinely horrifying.

10:25: Speaking of Colorado's gubernatorial race, keep an eye on whether Dan Maes (R) manages to get 10% of the vote -- a threshold he might very well miss. The result will be important to the Republican Party keeping its status as a "major political party" in the state.

10:38: Rep. Joseph Cao (R) lost in a very Democratic New Orleans district today. There aren't many of these red-to-blue House districts this year, but this was one Dems expected to win.

10:40: NBC is reporting that Sen. Russ Feingold (D) really is going to lose. The polls all showed this as practically inevitable, but it still seems incomprehensible.

10:45: The guy who beat Feingold is, as regular readers know, Ron Johnson. To say he's not ready for prime time is a dramatic understatement. It's bizarre that he even ran for the U.S. Senate; that he's actually won is ridiculous.

10:50: It looks like Nikki Haley (R) has won the gubernatorial race in South Carolina after all.

10:53: It was a whole lot closer than Dems would have liked, but the AP says Rep. Rush Holt (D) has won re-election in New Jersey's 12th.

10:57: There have been some real heartbreakers tonight, but the apparent loss of Rep. Patrick Murphy (D) in Pennsylvania is just awful. Patrick was not only the first veteran of this Iraq War to get elected to Congress, he was also a forceful champion of DADT repeal.

Steve Benen 10:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share

ELECTION NIGHT, THIRD THREAD.... Third time's the charm?

9:01: MSNBC is projecting that, when all is said and done, Republicans will gain about 59 seats, 20 more than needed to get a majority.

9:04: Sen. John Thune (R) appears to have won re-election in South Dakota, which wasn't tough, since he had no opponent.

9:05: In the third Senate seat to switch from "blue" to "red," Gov. John Hoeven (R) has won Dorgan's old seat in North Dakota. This was arguably the easiest of all GOP pick-ups.

9:07: It looks like a clean sweep for Dems in New York -- Cuomo wins the gubernatorial race, while Schumer and Gillibrand both win Senate races.

9:13: Didn't Dick Morris tell us Gillibrand was in trouble? It's almost as if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

9:16: CNN is calling Texas' gubernatorial race for incumbent Gov. Rick Perry (R). This is another one of those contests that could have gone the other way in a more traditional cycle.

9:18: MSNBC, CNN, and Fox are all saying what we've long suspected -- Republicans really will take back the House majority.

9:22: It looks like incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has won re-election in Maryland. It's not a big surprise, but a while back, this one had Dems worried.

9:29: Republicans had another good day in Kansas, where Sen. Sam Brownback (R) won the gubernatorial race, and Rep. Jerry Moran (R) won the Senate race to replace him.

9:30: Insert obligatory "What's the matter with Kansas?" joke here.

9:32: Untroubled by his willingness to hire prostitutes and put an abusive criminal in charge of his office's handling of women's issues, Louisiana voters have given Sen. David Vitter (R) another term.

9:35: It looks like Rep. Roy Blunt (R) has won Missouri's U.S. Senate race. Dems recruited the candidate they wanted for this one -- Carnahans just aren't supposed to lose in Missouri -- and a year ago, it appeared very winnable. The larger winds just proved too strong.

9:40: Another tough loss for the House Dems -- Carol Shea-Porter (D) was defeated in New Hampshire's 1st. A wave brought her into Congress (in 2006), and a wave will send her back out (in 2010).

9:44: Dems are no doubt delighted to see Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) hang on to win in Indiana's 2nd. He's a Blue Dog in a tough district and he voted for the Affordable Care Act, and Republicans hoped to take his seat. They came up short.

9:48: Rep. Chet Edwards (D) of Texas is not nationally known, but I've always been a fan. He lost his re-election bid in the 17th district tonight to a guy who said he wanted to raise the retirement age, and then insisted he only made the comment because he had a headache. The GOP has been targeting Edwards for years, and they finally got him.

9:55: NBC is calling Massachusetts' gubernatorial race for incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick (D). If it holds, it's a big win for the Democratic Governors Association, and David Plouffe, who helped map Patrick's strategy. Dems really wanted this one, and given where Patrick was in the polls two years ago, it wasn't easy.

9:58: Another Blue Dog goes down, this time it's Lincoln Davis (D) in Tennessee. Check back tomorrow and I'll tell you all about the crazy guy who beat him. It's a wild story.

Steve Benen 9:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

ELECTION NIGHT, SECOND THREAD.... Because the first thread left so many unanswered questions.

8:01: Marco Rubio (R) has won the three-way Senate contest in Florida, but for all intents and purposes, this race was over weeks ago.

8:02: The networks are calling Delaware's U.S. race for Chris Coons (D).

8:04: Looks like Kelly Ayotte (R) has won Judd Gregg's Senate seat in New Hampshire. Remember a year ago when this looked like a Dem pick-up?

8:07: AP is calling Maryland's Senate race for Barbara Mikulski (D) and Alabama's Senate race for Richard Shelby (R). Neither race was expected to be competitive, and neither race was competitive.

8:10: Here's an interesting one -- John Carney (D) appears set to win Mike Castle's (R) U.S. House seat in Delaware. The GOP hoped to keep it, but as with the Senate race in Delaware, the party base backed the fringe candidate in the primary.

8:12: AP is calling New Hampshire's gubernatorial race for incumbent Gov. John Lynch (D). This wasn't a gimmie, and Dems in the state have reason to be relieved with the outcome.

8:14: Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) wins re-election in Georgia. Another one of the night's non-competitive races.

8:16: Have any of the networks offered Christine O'Donnell her own show yet? Just wondering.

8:19: CBS is saying Rep. Tom Perriello (D) lost in Virginia's 5th. That's not a huge surprise, but Perriello is a first-class mensch, and I'm genuinely sorry to see him go.

8:22: Rick Snyder (R) appears to have won Michigan's gubernatorial race fairly easily. GOP will be thrilled, but by Republican standards, the guy really isn't a fire-breathing wingnut.

8:25: Everyone's calling for North Carolina's Senate race for incumbent Richard Burr (R). If this weren't such a strong GOP year, this was a race that could have gone the other way -- Burr just isn't especially well liked in N.C.

8:27: As Republicans position themselves to win the House, they're going to start winning some key targets. Here's a big one: Sandy Adams (R) appears to have defeated Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D) in Florida's 24th.

8:31: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) lost in Arkansas. She's the fist incumbent senator to lose, and her seat is the second to flip from "blue" to "red" tonight.

8:34: Several outlets are calling Connecticut's U.S. Senate race for Richard Blumenthal (D), over wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R). Not too long ago, Dems were really sweating this one.

8:36: Some Florida outlets are saying Rep. Alan Grayson (D) lost. No word just yet from national outlets.

8:39: The road to the GOP takeover of the House is going through Virginia. Not only did Perriello lose, which was largely expected, but Reps. Glenn Nye (D) and Rick Boucher (D) have also apparently lost, and that wasn't expected.

8:41: Several outlets are calling West Virginia's U.S. Senate race for Gov. Joe Manchin (D). If that holds true, it's pretty tough to see how Republicans re-take the Senate tonight.

8:44: Remember, two years ago, when it seemed reasonable to include Virginia in the list of "purple" states? Yeah, we should stop doing that now.

8:45: Grayson has conceded in Florida.

8:46: Beginning to think that "hicky" ad was the most consequential spot of the entire cycle.

8:50: Arkansas has quickly become a very "red" state, but it nevertheless re-elected incumbent Gov. Mike Beebe (D) without much of a fuss.

8:53: The AP is saying Sen. Tom Coburn (R) has won another term in Oklahoma. Since I'd kind of forgotten he was even up for re-election this year, I'll put in the "not a surprise" category.

8:56: It appears that Indiana Blue Dog Baron Hill (D) has lost re-election in Indiana. While he was a narrow underdog for re-election, he appears to be getting trounced, which would appear to be a bad sign for Democratic efforts overall. (Indiana's 9th is one of those "bellwether" districts.)

8:59: Former congressman-turned-felon Jim Traficant worked hard to get on the ballot in Ohio, but he won't be "beamed" back to Congress. I'm glad.

Steve Benen 8:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

ELECTION NIGHT, FIRST THREAD.... And so it begins...

7:03: It looks like some news outlets are already calling Kentucky's U.S. Senate race for right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R), and Indiana's U.S. Senate race for corporate lobbyist Dan Coats (R). Neither result is a surprise.

7:05: More U.S. House races called: Indiana's 5th, Indiana's 6th, and Kentucky's 5th. All are safe "red" seats, all have been called for Republicans; and none of this is even remotely surprising.

7:11: Two races to keep an eye on at this early hour are Baron Hill's (D) race in Indiana's 9th, and Ben Chandler's (D) in Kentucky's 6th. Both are centrist Dems in "red" districts, and if both lose, it may be evidence of a catastrophic night for Democrats. Something to keep an eye on.

7:15: We'll be hearing plenty about this tonight and tomorrow, but CNN has a report on an interesting tidbit from the exit polls: 43% of today's voters have a favorable opinion of Democrats, while 41% have a favorable opinion of Republicans. America is poised to replace an unpopular party with an even more unpopular party. Is there any modern precedent for such a result?

7:17: The AP is calling South Carolina's U.S. Senate race for Jim DeMint (R) and Vermont's U.S. Senate race for Pat Leahy (D). These are two of the safest incumbents in the country.

7:21: Maybe it's just me, but I still find it odd that Kentucky would elect to the U.S. Senate an odd, self-accredited ophthalmologist who doesn't know much about public policy, the state he lives in, or even his own political ideology. Sure, we knew he'd win, but that doesn't make this any less bizarre.

7:25: Indiana will replace Evan Bayh (D) with an old, wealthy Washington insider, who left Indiana more than a decade ago, and who's spent several years as a corporate lobbyist. This, of course, is evidence of the public's desire for a fresh, new perspective in Congress, with senators who can relate to regular people.

7:33: Multiple outlets are calling Ohio's U.S. Senate race for Rob Portman (R). Another expected result.

7:38: Way back when -- say, a year ago -- I thought Portman might have real trouble in Ohio. He didn't just occasionally vote for the Bush agenda that did so much damage to Ohio, 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. Now, he'll be a U.S. senator. Hmm.

7:47: It looks like Marcy Kaptur (D) won, as expected, in Ohio's 9th. That's the race that got interesting when we learned that her Republican opponent spent his weekends dressing up like a Nazi -- just for fun.

7:55: Looks like John Yarmuth (D) will hang onto his seat in Kentucky's 3rd. This was one of those keep-an-eye-on races -- if Yarmuth lost, it made the likelihood of a catastrophic, run-for-your-life night much more likely. But according to the AP and others, he's won re-election.

Steve Benen 7:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

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

* The deadliest attacks in Baghdad in months: "Insurgents unleashed a deadly series of coordinated attacks in Iraq's capital on Tuesday night, setting off more than a dozen bombs and demonstrating their ability to upend the government's measures to secure the country's largest and most important city. At least 63 people were killed and more than 280 were wounded, government officials said."

* The investigation into last week's terrorist plot continues: "American intelligence officials in September intercepted several packages containing books, papers, CDs and other household items shipped to Chicago from Yemen and considered the possibility that the parcels might be a test run for a terrorist attack, two officials said Monday night."

* BP's bottom line: "BP lifted its estimate of the likely cost of its Gulf of Mexico oil spill to $40 billion on Tuesday, denting profits, but its underlying performance beat all expectations on higher refining margins and a lower tax rate."

* I still have no idea what ABC News was thinking inviting Andrew Breitbart to help with its election coverage, but the fiasco came to an end this afternoon when the network un-invited the right-wing activist.

* While the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considers the constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the existing law will remain in place. (Of course, the Senate will still have a chance to put things right in the lame-duck session. We just need a couple of GOP votes to overcome the Republican filibuster.)

* GM continues to pay us back.

* Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there's been a big boost in the number of small businesses that are offering health coverage to their workers.

* It's been that kind of year: "Rep. Tom Perriello's Charlottesville, Va., office was vandalized last night -- and the vandal posted a sign for the Democrat's opponent, Republican Robert Hurt, outside the building."

* If the election results go as expected, there will be "less money for things like Pell grants, education loans, and research funding."

* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) joins the "we can't compromise" camp. What a guy.

* Author Curtis Sittenfeld explains why "still adores President Obama."

* And finally, just a quick housekeeping note. I'm taking a break now to eat dinner and catch my breath, but I'll be back at my desk in a bit and will be posting tonight as election results come in. See you then.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

PROBABLY NOT THE MOST SELF-AWARE CRITICISM OF THE DAY.... Sen. John McCain (R) is up for re-election in Arizona today, but unconcerned about the outcome, he has the time to head to Nevada to support extremist GOP nominee Sharron Angle.

Of particular interest, though, was McCain blasting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) for his DC-area living accommodations.

On election day, McCain told the crowd: "We are going to kick Harry Reid out of his penthouse at the Ritz-Carlton and send him back to [his hometown of] Searchlight!"

Um, John? In 2008, you owned so many homes around the world that you lost track of the total number.

Is the Ritz-Carlton "penthouse" line of attack really the smartest move?

Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

BACHMANN TO JOIN GOP LEADERSHIP?.... If, as expected, the House majority changes hands, a dizzying game of musical chairs will commence, with both caucuses putting together leadership teams. This is true of Democrats -- especially if Speaker Pelosi leaves Congress -- but also of Republicans.

The current GOP leadership team features John Boehner as Minority Leader, Eric Cantor as Minority Whip, and Mike Pence as Conference Chairman. Boehner, if all goes according to plan, will be Speaker, with Cantor as Majority Leader. Pence, however, appears likely to give up his post in order to run for president (yes, of the United States), leaving two vacancies in the new majority's leadership -- Whip and Conference Chair.

And guess who has her eyes on the latter.

Major Republican gains today are likely to produce some entertaining leadership and policy battles down the road, as the conservative wing -- emboldened by the election results -- asserts its thumbprint on the party's image.

How much intransigence there will be among the Tea Party sect will ultimately be determined by the ability of GOP leadership to satisfy their demands. But already, the possibility for friction is emerging. On Tuesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann, one of the more eccentric members of the Republican Party, put out feelers that she would like to assume the leadership role likely to be vacated by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.).

It's probably worth noting, just for the record, that Michele Bachmann appears to be a crazy person. We are, after all, talking about a lawmaker who thinks FDR passed "Hoot-Smalley" and caused the Depression. She argued a bipartisan national service bill might lead to "re-education camps." She doesn't know what a global reserve currency is, so she keeps ranting about "one-world currency." She thinks the U.S. Census could lead to "internment camps." She recently labeled school medical clinics as "sex clinics" (twice). She also recently urged her supporters to slit their wrists.

Bachmann, in other words, is mad as a hatter. And in a few months, she might very well be a member of the House majority's leadership team.

Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

ABOUT THAT FRANKEN TALKING POINT.... The U.S. Senate race in Minnesota two years ago was one of the closest statewide contests in American history, with Al Franken (D) edging past Norm Coleman (R) by 312 vote out of more than 2.9 million cast.

Republicans would still like the public to believe that Franken did not earn that victory, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. In fact, the Republican National Committee recently launched NoMoreFrankens.com, which not only said Franken relied on "liberal shadow organizations" and "illegal votes of convicted felons" to win, but also alleged that Democrats are poised to use similar imaginary tactics this year. Naturally, the RNC's gambit is a fundraising scheme -- pony up a check, and Republican lawyers will make sure there are "no more Frankens."

It's no doubt difficult to come up short in a nail-biter, but this continues to be pretty silly. Three separate courts considered the Franken-Coleman dispute, and all three were unanimous -- more voters backed Franken. Of the 12 judges who heard arguments, half were appointed by Republican governors.

As for the fraud allegations, no less an authority an Norm Coleman's own lawyer conceded that there was no fraud in the election or recount.

Journalist Jay Weiner, who covered the Franken-Coleman case as closely as anyone, published an item the other day that helped set the record straight. Of particular interest were the allegations of a far-right outfit called Minnesota Majority, which insisted that thousands of Minnesota felons cast ballots in the 2008 election.

Not so, said the county prosecutors who examined the Minnesota Majority's lists. So far, in the state's largest counties, which include Minneapolis and St. Paul, a total of about 80 felons who are still on probation and who are barred from voting in Minnesota, have been charged. Not all have been convicted. Across the state, there are handfuls more, it seems, not hundreds.

Franken won by 312 votes. There's no indication there were anywhere near that many who may have registered or voted illegally. Plus, what makes the Republicans think felons only vote for Democrats? In the first such case revealed about the 2008 election, the illegal voter admitted to casting his vote for Coleman.

There's obviously no way to know yet whether we'll see any statewide recounts this year, but if you hear anyone from the "No More Frankens" crowd piping up, remember, these guys are spinning a nonsensical tale.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

A MEDIA STRATEGY LIKE NO OTHER, CONT'D.... Following up on an item from last week, even in a year in which GOP candidates are avoiding journalists in ways with no modern precedent, Nevada's Sharron Angle is unique.

Angle has said, more than once, that she'll answer reporters' policy questions after the election, but not before. There have been instances in which she's literally refused to even acknowledge reporters' existence, and has conceded she only wants to talk to media outlets that will let her beg for cash on the air. In August, Angle boasted of a media manipulation strategy that pushes journalists "to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." She's even taken to using decoys to fool reporters covering her campaign.

This came to a head late last week when a reporter from Las Vegas' CBS affiliate, after being turned down for an interview, tried to ask the extremist candidate at an airport about foreign policy and national security policy. Angle not only refused to answer any questions, her campaign announced soon after that the CBS affiliate would be prohibited from entering Angle's election night festivities.

Today, Greg Sargent reports on Angle's explanation for all of this.

A perfect coda to the Nevada Senate race: In a radio interview this morning, Sharron Angle blamed the media for her campaign's decision to shut out reporters, slamming the press as "unprofessional" and adding that she thinks candidates should teach the media a "lesson" whenever they have the "opportunity."

Angle also described that recent episode where a reporter tried to ask her questions in an airport as "an ordeal."

Oh, poor muffin. A candidate for the U.S. Senate was asked a question about Nevadans serving in two wars. She couldn't address the subject at all, and is now complaining that the questions themselves represent an "ordeal."

Maybe if Angle would agree to tell voters about her issue positions, reporters wouldn't have to ask at the airport -- but this candidate has refused requests for interviews.

This morning, she went on to insist that "we need to bring back the professionalism into reporting." First, it's not up to candidates to dictate journalistic standards. Second, when a U.S. Senate candidate who's raised the specter of an armed insurrection against the United States government wants to talk about "professionalism," we've clearly entered the realm of farce.

Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... David Brooks noted in passing this morning, "Tea Party hype notwithstanding, most leading G.O.P. candidates either served in state legislatures or previously in Washington."

A Politico report tried to quantify that a bit, analyzing "the top candidates in 20 open seats where Republicans are expected to replace retiring members and the 50 closest House races." It found that "out of the 70 potential GOP freshmen, two-thirds will come to Washington with political experience."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), the would-be Speaker, offered a different assessment:

"The biggest thing that stands out to me is how many of our new members are ready, willing and able to make tough choices. Like me, these guys -- and women -- aren't professional politicians. They're small-business people and veterans.... People who looked up at what was happening to their country and said, 'Stop!'" [emphasis added]

I don't mean to sound picky, but John Boehner presenting himself as someone who isn't a "professional politician" is one of the more ridiculous things we'll hear today -- and believe me, we're going to hear a lot of nonsense today.

Look, I realize that "professional politician" sounds awful in the minds of many Americans, and Boehner wants to distance himself from the label. But the guy first entered elected public service nearly three decades ago. He was elected to Ohio's state legislature 26 years ago, and served three terms.

Twenty years ago, Boehner was elected to Congress, where he's served in multiple leadership roles. In a few months, he's very likely to become Speaker of the House -- the most powerful position in the legislative branch of government, becoming the lead politician in a chamber filled with other politicians.

If John Boehner isn't a "professional politician," the phrase has no meaning. The man has spent the vast majority of his adult life seeking and winning political offices.

If he's not a "professional politician," who is?

Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

CORNYN OFFERS WELCOME MAT FOR PARTY-SWITCHERS.... Most prognosticators believe Republicans will pick up a whole lot of U.S. Senate seats today, but not the 10 they need to claim a majority. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but not even GOP leaders seem to think it's possible.

But if Republicans end up with a caucus of 48 or 49 members, don't be too surprised if they start looking for party-switchers across the aisle. Indeed, some of this has already started.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Senate Republicans would "welcome" any Democrats who wish to switch parties and caucus with the GOP.

Cornyn, the head of Senate Republicans' campaign efforts, floated the possibility that the GOP might target Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, or another Democratic senator if Republicans come close to winning a majority but fall short.

"I think he votes like a Republican on those areas, and we would certainly welcome him or any other Democrat who wants to switch sides of the aisle and caucus with us," Cornyn said of Lieberman during an Election Day appearance on Fox News.

Other potential targets, according to the report from The Hill, are Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), or perhaps West Virginia's Joe Manchin (D), should he win today.

It's hard to guess what members like these might do, though I'd note that Ben Nelson, as recently as August, said he's not leaving the Democratic Party. Lieberman hasn't said much on the subject, and as far as I can tell, Pryor and Manchin haven't even been asked.

That said, it's probably worth keeping an eye on, especially if Cornyn & Co. get close enough to a majority to make this kind of outreach wildly important.

And just as a refresher, we talked a month ago about a similar scheme that's been in the works among House Republicans, but that would only be relevant if the GOP failed to get a net gain of 39 seats today, and few observers, if any, think they'll come up short.

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

Bookmark and Share

HOPE AND CASH.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) apparently has a stump speech with a favorite quip.

At each stop he draws on nostalgia for the Republican glory days of the 1980s, by telling the same joke. "Remember when Ronald Reagan was president," he said. "We had Bob Hope. We had Johnny Cash. Think about where we are today. We have got President Obama. But we have no hope and we have no cash." It draws hoots of laughter and applause every time.

As it turns out, Johnny Cash's daughter, singer and author Rosanne Cash, finds it far less amusing.

"John Boehner: Stop using my dad's name as a punchline, you asshat."

The amusing qualities of the exchange notwithstanding, Boehner's little attempt at humor got me thinking. At the risk of taking a joke too seriously -- we might have more "cash" if Boehner, Bush, and their buddies hadn't failed so spectacularly -- I do, actually, "remember when Ronald Reagan was president."

In fact, at this point in Reagan's presidency, the then-president's approval rating had dropped to the low 40s, unemployment was nearly 11%, and Republicans were already talking publicly about pleading with Reagan not to seek a second term.

Steve Kornacki recently noted that after the '82 midterms, "some outspoken conservatives even demanded -- publicly -- that [Reagan] be challenged in the '84 primaries if he went ahead and ran." Then-Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) even went to New Hampshire in late '82 to dip his toe in the presidential primary waters. Congressional Republicans, who'd avoided Reagan during the midterms, "began charting a course independent of the Reagan White House."

"Remember when Ronald Reagan was president"? Sure. But does Boehner?

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

Bookmark and Share

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Nearly all of the prognosticators are making the same predictions about tonight, but Nate Silver notes five reasons Republicans may do even better than expected tonight. Of course, there are also five reasons Democrats might exceed expectations.

* Predicting the outcome of Alaska's U.S. Senate race is pretty much impossible at this point, with a new Hays Research poll showing Joe Miller (R) in the lead with 27%, Scott McAdams (D) second at 26%, "another candidate you have to write in" at 25%, and a whole lot of undecided folks. Given the time it will take to consider the Lisa Murkowski write-in votes, I've heard rumors it could take weeks, if not months, to know the outcome of the contest.

* In Colorado's U.S. Senate race, Ken Buck (R) is well known for his radicalism on domestic policy, but it's worth noting that he's also strikingly ignorant about foreign policy.

* In New York's gubernatorial campaign, Carl Paladino (R) recently called former Gov. George Pataki (R) a "degenerate idiot." Yesterday, Pataki endorsed Paladino anyway.

* By most measures, Republicans will take several dozen House seats currently held by Democrats. But are there any "red" House seats that might flip to "blue"? Eric Kleefeld notes the handful of possibilities.

* According to research conducted by the Pew Forum's Project for Excellence in Journalism, the political candidate who received more media attention than any other is ... Delaware's Christine O'Donnell (R). In fact, O'Donnell had far more coverage than any other candidate running in 2010.

* And in the off chance you're still not sure where to vote, here's a handy tool to find your polling location.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Bookmark and Share

'A RARE BUT CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF WHAT THAT PARTY STANDS FOR'.... My friend Rachel Maddow has been on quite a roll lately, with some tremendous pre-election segments related to the campaign cycle, the candidates, the parties, and what's at stake. Last night's recap of the legislative record of the last 21 months was especially noteworthy.

Rachel noted what we all assume to be true -- "Republican will pick a lot of seats" today, and we "will likely be entering into a period of divided power" -- but she took stock of what Democrats delivered. Indeed, she noted that when one party controls the levers of power, Americans get "a rare but clear and unobstructed view of what that party stands for, what that party's made of, what that party values."

And at that point, Rachel began a stroll down memory lane, noting the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first Democratic accomplishment of 2009. It was soon followed by new consumer safeguards related to credit card companies, long-awaited regulation of the tobacco industry, a hate-crimes bill, expansion of children's health care, and a national service bill.

Then there's the bigger-ticket, better-known items: sweeping student-loan reforms, the successful cash-for-clunkers program and the rescue of the American automotive industry, the economy-saving Recovery Act, the Affordable Care Act, and Wall Street reform.

Rachel also took note of the words of the national commander of the American Legion, who explained that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress did more for veterans in these last 21 months than has been done in a very long time.

"The Democratic Party has had control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the last 21 months," she concluded. "Forget the individual fights over the individual provisions of the individual bills. Forget the lost amendment fights and the process complaints.

"Democrats had a choice when they became the governing party. When they won those last two elections and they took control of the two branches of government that are subject to partisan control in our country, they could have governed in a way that was about accumulating political capital with the primary goal of winning the next election. They could have governed in constant campaign mode. Or they could have governed in a way that was about using their political capital, not accumulating more of it, about spending the political capital they had to get a legislative agenda done, to tackle big, complex, longstanding problems that had languished.

"The record of legislative achievement of the last 21 months was not designed to win the midterm elections and it will not win the midterm elections. The pendulum will swing back toward the Republicans and we'll go back to divided government again. The legislative agenda of the last 21 months was policy, not politics. It was designed to get stuff done for the country. And in that sense, it's an investment in long-term political reward, not short-term political reward, as Democrats expect after a list of accomplishments like this to be judged as the party that took on problems when it had the chance, even if they had to pay a short-term political price.

"The political capital that Democrats accumulated over the last two elections was spent in these last 21 months. And it was spent on policy, hard votes with long-time horizons that don't translate into killing the other party in the next election.

"If you listen to the criticism, particularly from the left, heading into these elections, what you often hear is that Democrats are going to lose in these elections because they didn't get enough done. You know, big picture, if that were true, that would be depressing. It's not actually the true big picture, though. The fact is, that Democrats got a lot done, a lot of hard stuff done on hard problems in a short amount of time. The price they may end up paying for that is losing a midterm election. Democrats' choice is whether or not it's worth it."

Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

Bookmark and Share

THE FAMILIAR RING OF THE K STREET PROJECT.... The notorious K Street Project became synonymous with Republican excesses of the Gingrich/DeLay/Bush era, and for good reason. As part of the effort, GOP leaders told business leaders that those who supported the Republican agenda across the board would be rewarded with access and influence; those whose loyalties were questioned would be locked out of the policymaking process.

It became a devastating scandal for the Republican Party, and Exhibit A in the culture of corruption that helped drive the GOP from power in 2006. Indeed, when John Boehner sought a leadership post in January 2006, he vowed that under his guidance, "[T]here will no longer be a K Street Project, or anything else like it."

The elaborate scheme has not been resuscitated, at least not yet. But the Washington Post has an important front-page piece today, explaining that something resembling the K Street Project is already taking shape among Republicans on the Hill.

Republicans have a message for the businesses that worked closely with the Obama administration over the past two years on key controversial issues: We won't forget.

Take the case of Wal-Mart, the behemoth big-box retailer that liberals have long loved to hate. Several years ago, it began to break ranks with industry groups by speaking out in favor of a minimum wage increase and health-care reform. And, for the first time in its history, it gave more money to Democrats than the GOP for Tuesday's elections.

The corporation's moves caught the eye of Republican Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan. During a phone call with company lobbyists last year during the fight over the health-care bill, Camp bluntly reminded Wal-Mart of its unpalatable position on the issue, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Now, Wal-Mart's political team finds itself in an awkward position. Camp is poised to become the next chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

Companies that worked with the Democrats over the past two years would face a far less sympathetic audience from Republicans, who are expected to make significant gains in the midterm elections. If they gain control of Congress, party leaders have pledged to revisit the health-care bill and lower taxes for businesses.

"Some businesses joined in on the hang-me-last strategy," said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.). "I think upon reflection, in moments of candor, they may say they were foolish to do that."

The report didn't elaborate on precisely what Roskam meant by that, but in context, the comment implies that businesses "were foolish" to work with the governing majority of the last two years -- because Republicans will be in a position to punish those businesses now.

Keep in mind, this isn't the first hint of the K Street Project's return we've seen. In May, GOP leaders announced they were "keeping score" when it came to corporate PACs' campaign donations. If lobbyists want to start writing legislation again, the way they did before there was a Democratic majority, the implication was that they'd have to start buying that influence once again.

All of this, of course, comes under the leadership of John Boehner, who makes no secret of his affinity for lobbyists, whom he turns to for practically everything.

When GOP leaders vowed to take America back to "the exact same agenda," they were referring to Bush/Cheney on policy, but they were probably also thinking of Tom DeLay when it came to governance.

Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

'FOCUSING' IS NOT A POLICY.... Way back in January, with Democrats' electoral standing faltering, political analyst Charlie Cook insisted Democrats "made a colossal miscalculation" by failing to focus all of their efforts on the economy. "Although no one can fairly accuse Obama and his party's leaders of ignoring the economy, they certainly haven't focused on it like a laser beam," Cook said.

Last night, Cook told Charlie Rose the same thing -- if only Dems had "focused" more on the economy, they wouldn't be in such a mess. I can only assume pundits will be repeating this line, over and over again, for the next several months.

Paul Krugman noted this morning how silly this is.

Yes, Democrats would be in better shape if the economy were in better shape. Duh.

So when you say Obama should have focused more, what policies are you talking about? A bigger stimulus? As far as I can tell, almost no pundits are saying that. So what other concrete policies do they have in mind? I have never gotten an answer.

The notion seems to be that if Obama had spent the past 20 months going around with furrowed brow, saying, "I'm focused on the economy", this would have (a) somehow created jobs (b) made people feel better about 9.6 percent unemployment.

The problem is, "focusing" is not a policy.

Immediately upon taking office, President Obama began crafting an economic recovery package, and succeeded in getting one passed. Despite hysterical shrieks -- conservatives still believe tax cuts and spending cuts would have been more effective, reality notwithstanding -- the stimulus effort worked in improving the economy and preventing a depression. Among credible, independent economists, this isn't even controversial anymore.

For Cook and others, Obama and congressional Dems should have pivoted from focusing on the economy to ... focusing some more on the economy. With what? More focus, apparently.

What, specifically, were Democrats supposed to do? Wait for photographers to take pictures of the president and his team staring at charts, demonstrating their "focus"? Even if the White House had presented a series of additional stimulus measures, they would have been blocked by congressional Republicans anyway.

I don't doubt the explanation to explain the midterms will be common, but it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE GOP LEADER TALKS OF BEING 'FORCED' INTO A SHUTDOWN.... Pundits' predictions about Republican "modesty" notwithstanding, GOP officials continue to talk up the idea of shutting down the government next year.

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the top GOP member of the influential House Financial Services Committee, said Republicans should be prepared to be "brave" in the face of a shutdown.

"I would think when we send the spending bills to the president he will veto them, and then the hard vote will be when he sends them back and we will be faced with another situation where he will probably try to force us to shut government down and we are going to have to be brave this time," Bachus explained on the Fox Business Network.

Remember, Bachus isn't just some unknown backbencher or an obscure freshman -- he's very likely to be the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in a few months.

Also note, Bachus insisted "we would not shut the government down," it's just that rascally president who would "force" Republicans "to shut government down."

Republicans aren't looking to compromise; they're looking to avoid blame when they blow off compromising.

I still think this would be a tough sell for the GOP to pull off. They've spent months practically boasting about their shutdown intentions, and just last week, the new, incoming senator from Utah described the possibility of a shutdown as "absolutely necessary."

In fairness, I should note that a few weeks ago, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked if we're likely to see a replay of the showdown that led Gingrich to shut down the government. Cantor replied, "No. I don't think the country needs or wants a shutdown."

But the number of Republicans who disagree with Cantor keeps growing.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

WALKING IS SO 19TH CENTURY.... It's hard to identify the exact moment Dan Maes' Republican gubernatorial campaign in Colorado reached the point of no return, but I'd argue it was early August. Maes insisted that bike paths in Denver were part of a "very well-disguised" scheme cooked up by the United Nations. He assured supporters the plot "will be exposed."

The sentiment was obviously more than a little nutty, but it's worth noting that conservative hostility towards bike paths is not limited to strange gubernatorial candidates. In a new piece for the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes insists "the road to hell is paved with bike paths." Jon Chait flagged Barnes' unintentionally amusing conclusion:

In his tabletop speech, [Transportation Department Secretary Ray LaHood] said he and his wife take their bikes to the path along the C&O; Canal and "ride as far as we possibly can." That's nice. But it's interesting, and perhaps telling, that the canal, as a major mode of transportation, has been obsolete since the 1880s -- a lot like bicycling and walking.

Yes, that's right, bicycling and walking are "obsolete."

The things one learns reading the Weekly Standard.

Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

Bookmark and Share

THE GOP'S ELUSIVE 'MODESTY'.... When it comes to predicting how Republican lawmakers will act next year, we talked over the weekend about two competing models.

On the one hand, we have Jacob Weisberg, who believe GOP leaders "will feint right while legislating closer to the center." Republicans will realize, Weisberg argued, "they're being handed a gift, not a mandate." These GOP officials "don't think working with Democrats is evil. On the big picture tax and budget issues, they plan compromise with President Obama."

On the other, we have Dana Milbank, who explained that the modern Republican Party "is sorely in need of grown-ups." As Milbank sees it, "[T]here is no Bob Dole in the Republican leadership today; there isn't even a Newt Gingrich. There is nobody with the clout to tell Tea Party-inspired backbenchers when it's time to put down the grenades and negotiate. Rather, there are weak leaders who, frightened by the Tea Party radicals, have become unquestioning followers of a radical approach."

In his column today, David Brooks sides with the former, insisting Republicans are feeling "modest and cautious." They're "sober," Brooks believes. They won't "overreach." The GOP's leaders are "prepared to take what they can get, even if it's not always what they would like."

The new Republicans may distrust government, but this will be a Republican class with enormous legislative experience. Tea Party hype notwithstanding, most leading G.O.P. candidates either served in state legislatures or previously in Washington. The No Compromise stalwarts like Senator Jim DeMint have a big megaphone but few actual followers within the Senate.

Over all, if it is won, a Republican House majority will be like a second marriage. Less ecstasy, more realism. The party could have used a few more years to develop plans about the big things, like tax and entitlement reform. But if a party is going to do well in an election, it should at least be a party that has developed a sense of modesty.

I honestly have no idea how Brooks has come to believe this.

To be sure, I'd love to think reasonable Republicans intend to be responsible with power, and intend to take a mature approach to good-faith negotiations. It's a pleasant fantasy.

But is there any evidence -- any at all -- to support such an assumption? Not only have GOP leaders spent the last two years acting like spoiled children, uninterested in any serious policy work, they've also sent the last two weeks boldly proclaiming their intention to refuse to compromise with anyone about anything.

Indeed, the number of Republicans talking about shutting down the government next year is already pretty large, and it's getting bigger. A growing number of Republicans are even talking about deliberately pushing the United States government to literally default on its debts early next year.

Brooks would have us believe the reckless loudmouths are just bloviating, and that the GOP leadership will be far more sensible. That would be the leadership team that features Mitch McConnell (who insisted just last week that his top priority is destroying President Obama), John Boehner (who proclaimed the other day, "This is not a time for compromise"), and Mike Pence (who insisted two weeks ago that Republicans must not even try to work with the White House).

The point of Brooks' column seems to be that voters shouldn't fear Republican excesses after the midterms. I'm quite certain that's bad advice.

Steve Benen 7:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share
 
November 1, 2010

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

* Terrorists hoped to bring down planes: "The two package bombs intercepted by authorities in Britain and Dubai last week appear to have been built to detonate 'in flight' and to bring down the planes carrying them, President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said."

* Unlike some recent terrorist attempts, last week's bombs "were expertly constructed and unusually sophisticated."

* A relatively good sign: "Manufacturing activity expanded last month at the fastest pace since May, driven by demand in the United States and abroad for cars, computers and other goods."

* On a related note, the Federal Reserve is expected to act in some capacity this week, but "most economists say it is unlikely to have a big impact on employment and growth."

* Tragedy in a Baghdad church: "Iraq's Christian community was in shock Monday after Islamist militants in suicide vests besieged a church during Sunday mass and then fought Iraqi commandos in a melee that left at least 58 people dead."

* Dilma Rousseff easily won Brazil's presidency over the weekend, and will become the country's first female president.

* I can only assume that ABC News, right about now, is wondering why on earth it reached out to work with Andrew Breitbart.

* Daniel Luzer does a nice job summarizing the problem with financial aid to college students.

* Offering an anti-Islam remark that was slightly worse than Juan Williams', Bill Maher offers a reminder that he, too, can say some pretty dumb things.

* And if you're wondering why Republican activists seem so worked up about bogus "voter fraud" allegations, there's no great mystery here -- their media outlets are manufacturing a controversy that doesn't exist.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

Bookmark and Share

TED SORENSEN.... The great Ted Sorensen died yesterday at the age of 82. He'd suffered a stroke a week ago, and passed away at a New York hospital.

Those familiar with his name likely think of Sorensen as John F. Kennedy's legendary speechwriter, but he was far more than that. As the New York Times noted today, Sorensen was "a writer and counselor" who did much to shape JFK's "narrative, image and legacy.... He was a political strategist and a trusted adviser on everything from election tactics to foreign policy."

In light of his passing, the Washington Monthly has this online exclusive this afternoon:

Theodore C. Sorensen, who died yesterday at the age of 82, was America's most celebrated presidential wordsmith and a friend of the Washington Monthly. As young special adviser to President John F. Kennedy, he helped establish the 35th president's reputation as a great orator and political visionary -- leading JFK to refer to Sorensen as his "intellectual blood bank."

In 2007, we asked Sorensen to write the speech he would most want the next Democratic nominee to give at the party convention in Denver in August 2008. We requested that he proceed with no particular candidate in mind and that he give no consideration to expediency or tactics, but instead write the speech of his dreams. We ran the result as our cover story in July of that year.

Shortly thereafter, Sorensen was interviewed by Washington Monthly on the Radio hosts Markos Kounalakis and Peter Laufer. In that interview, which later appeared as a chapter in the book Hope is a Tattered Flag, Sorensen discussed the faux speech he wrote for us, and the real one he penned for JFK in 1960.

Take a look; it's well worth checking out.

Steve Benen 5:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share

MCCONNELL DEFENDS HIS PETTY PARTISANSHIP.... Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) caused a minor stir last week, insisting in an interview, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.... Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."

The remarks were not well received. Democrats were outraged; President Obama emphasized the quote in his weekly address; and even Joe Scarborough, not exactly a liberal, characterized McConnell's comments as "embarrassing" and "pathetic."

Today, McConnell dismissed the criticism as "laughable," and said he has no regrets for having made the comments.

"I know the president's goal is to get a second term. It's not surprising that Republicans would want him to not get reelected," McConnell said in an interview with POLITICO. [...]

McConnell said in a phone interview Monday that the attacks are "kind of laughable" and said Democrats are only focusing on him because "they don't have much to talk about."

At first blush, this might seem like a vaguely persuasive defense. McConnell's a Republican leader; the president is a Democrat. Of course it makes sense that McConnell would like to see the president serve only one term.

But this badly misses the point of the controversy.

For one thing, McConnell didn't just say he wants the president to lose in 2012; McConnell implicitly argued that he intends to use the levers of power to ensure the president's political destruction. Indeed, instead of talking about job creation or national security as his top priority, McConnell described Obama's defeat as "the single most important thing we want to achieve."

If policymakers are going to have to compromise next year to get anything done, how can Obama expect to work in good faith with GOP lawmakers whose only real goal is to crush him?

For another, the larger context matters. As Paul Krugman noted the other day, "If you read the full interview, what Mr. McConnell was saying was that, in 1995, Republicans erred by focusing too much on their policy agenda and not enough on destroying the president: 'We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being re-elected, and we were hanging on for our lives.' So this time around, he implied, they'll stay focused on bringing down Mr. Obama."

Let's put it this way: imagine if, in 2002, Tom Daschle announced publicly that no matter what happened in the midterm elections, he and his caucus would use their power to undermine President Bush at all costs, and the desire to limit him to one term would be the caucus' single greatest priority, above literally everything else facing the country.

Do you suppose Republicans and political reporters would have something to say about it?

Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

Bookmark and Share

THE DEBT-LIMIT SHOWDOWN LOOMS.... Fairly early on in the next Congress, lawmakers are going to have to approve yet another raise in the federal debt limit. At least, they should, if they hope to avoid an enormous catastrophe.

The problem, of course, is that quite a few far-right Republicans, especially those poised to win tomorrow, have no intention of doing what's necessary. Bruce Bartlett noted the other day that it's a disaster just waiting to happen.

I hope I am wrong, but I don't see any prospect of meaningful action by a Republican Congress that would reduce the deficit, and much reason to think it will get worse if they have their way by enacting massive new tax cuts while protecting Medicare from cuts. And as I have previously warned, I am very fearful that it will be impossible to raise the debt limit, which would bring about a default and real, honest-to-God bankruptcy -- something many Tea Party-types have openly called for in an insane belief that this will somehow or other impose fiscal discipline on out-of-control government spending without forcing them to vote either for spending cuts or tax increases.

When we talk about this crop of Republicans being absolutely stark raving mad, the debt-limit issue offers a terrific example. For years, responsible officials in both parties have recognized, particularly in times of war and/or economic crises, that extending the debt limit is a routine step necessary to keep America paying its bills.

But today's GOP is another animal entirely. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told CNN yesterday, "We are not going to compromise on raising more debt. We are not going to compromise on raising the debt ceiling." Republican candidates have been saying the same thing lately.

Just to be perfectly clear here, if Republicans retake the majority and block an effort to raise the debt limit, this tells the world that the United States isn't in a position to repay its debts. We're talking about an America in default. The practical effects could prove catastrophic to the global economy -- that's not hyperbole; that's just reality.

I assume the vast majority of voters have no idea that this is coming, and that GOP recklessness on the debt limit could lead to a genuinely horrifying calamity. On the contrary, attack ads this season have been targeting Democrats for their routine votes increasing the debt limit -- suggesting to voters that raising the limit is somehow scandalous and wrong.

Next year is likely to be ugly, but my sense is a lot of folks may not appreciate just how ugly it might get.

Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

Bookmark and Share

VOTERS CAN WORK ON RESTORING SANITY, TOO.... I couldn't make it to the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" over the weekend, but journalist James Maguire covered the event for the Washington Monthly, and has an online exclusive we published this afternoon.

It's well worth checking out -- James helps capture the atmosphere nicely for those of us who weren't there -- but the piece also notes one of the messages the audience didn't hear on Saturday.

Near the end, Stewart drops comedy (mostly) and addressees us sincerely. The crowd grows fully silent as we sense his intensity. "We live in hard times, not end times," he says, to robust applause. Still, we can disagree and not be enemies. The real bogeyman, he suggests, is the media. "The 24-hour politico-pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder." This broken media machine over-amplifies and distorts issues. The funhouse mirror of media coverage encourages division, hampers our efforts to work together. We must rise above its polarizing effect to work together for the common good.

His speech feels heartfelt, but to my ears it has a stark omission. Oddly, he does not exhort us to vote, now on the eve of the midterms. Why not? Is a call for reasoned discourse somehow mutually exclusive with a call for actual involvement?

Certainly the recent Beck/Rally rally here on the Mall didn't discourage fierce partisanship. The conservatives are teeth-and-fang one-sided, showing no interest in meeting in the middle. The youthful idealists standing in this field today were foot soldiers that helped elect Obama in 2008. With the midterms just 72 hours away, must they be told that moderation is the greatest virtue? Conservatives are working phone banks night and day. And not a single peep this afternoon about the critical importance of voting?

I can appreciate why Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were determined to make the gathering non-political, non-partisan, and non-ideological. And if their goal was to entertain, lament what's become of the media, and encourage a more constructive public discourse, I think it's fair to say they did what they set out to do.

But it's not unreasonable to think it will be even harder to restore sanity if candidates who aren't sane fare well tomorrow, and voters who are sane don't bother showing up.

In any case, there's a lot more to James' piece, and readers should take a look.

Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... The "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" looked pretty successful on Saturday, with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hanging out with about 215,000 friends.

But Ben Armbruster notes that the cast of "Fox & Friends" was not at all impressed.

[D]espite the rally's overall light-hearted nature, Fox Newsers didn't seem to care too much for it. On Fox & Friends yesterday, host Gretchen Carlson seemed uninformed about the rally, asking, "Did they call it the insanity something or other?" The former beauty contestant then mocked Stewart and Colbert saying that, "unfortunately," many people think they are "news people." "He looks fancy in his suit, like he is a real news person," Carlson quipped.

First, many folks probably do consider these comedians "news people," but those viewers tend to be pretty sharp. In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey found that Fox News viewers were the most confused about current events, while viewers of "The Daily Show" were among the best informed news consumers in the country. Comedy Central, relying on data from Nielsen Media Research, also found that Stewart's audience not only knew more about current events, but were far better educated than Bill O'Reilly's audience.

Three years later, the Pew Research Study published a report showing that "viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last."

Second, for Carlson to mock Stewart as looking "fancy in his suit, like he is a real news person," is rather remarkable. She is, after all, the co-host of "Fox & Friends," for crying out loud. Carlson may not have noticed, but she isn't a media professional with any kind of journalistic standards, and she sits next to two buffoons who also happen to wear suits, as if they were "real news people."

If the "Fox & Friends" cast wants to take some shots at Stewart and Colbert, that's obviously fine. The Comedy Central hosts certainly seem to enjoy singling out Carlson, Doocy, and Kilmeade for well-deserved mockery.

But if silly media personalities who pretend to be Fox News "journalists" could spare us the quips about "real news people," the back and forth would be far less annoying.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share

ZOMBIE VOTERS ON THE LOOSE IN KANSAS.... In "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," there's a rather macabre scene in which a mortician comes through, asking townspeople to bring out their dead. One man brings out a body for the cart, but the body starts speaking. "I'm not dead!" the old man says.

I wonder if Kris Kobach has seen it.

If Kobach's name sounds familiar, it's because he used to serve as the chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, where he boasted about his aggressive -- and successful -- "voter caging" efforts. More recently, he helped craft and manipulate Arizona's immigration laws to make harassment of minorities easier.

Kobach is now running to be Secretary of State in Kansas, where he's railing against alleged "voter fraud." Last week, he even claimed to have uncovered evidence of dead people registered to vote in the state -- and in some cases, he said, the dead are even casting ballots.

The problem, of course, is that those Kobach thinks are dead are actually feeling just fine, thank you very much. (thanks to B.G. for the tip)

[Kobach] gave an example of one person -- Alfred K. Brewer, a Republican, registered in Sedgwick County with a birth date listed of Jan. 1, 1900. Brewer, according to the comparison of Social Security records and Kansas voter rolls, had died in 1996 yet had voted in the August primary, Kobach said.

Reached Thursday at his home where he was raking leaves, Brewer, 78, was surprised some people thought he was dead.

"I don't think this is heaven, not when I'm raking leaves," he said.

Brewer, who lives in Wichita, said he has been an active voter since he could vote. He first registered to vote in Kansas in 1964. He said he plans to cast a ballot Tuesday.

Apparently, local officials used a placeholder date of Jan. 1, 1900 when they didn't know someone's birthdate, and when Brewer registered back in the day, he simply wrote his age -- not his birthday -- on his voter registration card.

Keep in mind, when Kobach cited Brewer as an example of voter fraud, he boasted to reporters, "We have done some of our own research and it is amazing what you find."

Amazing, indeed.

Now, I realize that Kobach is a bit of a nut and his right-wing ideology no doubt clouds his judgment, but did it not occur to him to maybe check on whether Alfred K. Brewer is actually dead before using his name as an example of a dead man voting?

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

Bookmark and Share

THAT'S NOT AN ESPECIALLY IMPRESSIVE SKILL IN A PRESIDENT.... Before last night's World Series game, former Presidents Bush took the mound for a ceremonial pitch, thrown, not surprisingly, by the younger one. It was in Texas, and Bush 43 used to own one of the teams in the game, so the Bushes were well received.

But Scott Lemieux notes that the reaction to the pitch from some on the right is rather odd.

Shorter Verbatim Blogprof: "How refreshing that we had a President that knows how to throw a baseball. Bush didn't 'wrist' it like sissy girls do." How dreamy! Sadly, this is followed by links to several other wingers making similar observations, perhaps while scrawling hearts all over their kiddie biographies.

It seems bizarre, but far-right really do seem excited about this today. One prominent conservative wrote about the former president throwing a baseball, "What a moment! ... What a wonderful moment." Another called the joint appearance on the field, "What a moving study in dignity and class. What a great example." Another writer on the same site wrote, "God, I miss the man. I disagreed with him on a number of issues ... but no one ever doubted where his loyalties lay or what country he thought he was President of.... It's good to see that he still throws a baseball like a man, which is how he governed."

Another wrote, "Miss them yet, America? What a moment in Texas. Father, son and baseball -- it does not get any more American than that.... Remember Barack Hussein Obama's pathetic first pitches? Who could forget the lameness."

Remember, these people are entirely serious. None of this is tongue-in-cheek, or intended to be funny, or published as some kind of parody.

There was a point about two years ago at which conservatives started pretending Bush really wasn't one of them. He expanded the size and scope of government; he added $5 trillion to the debt in just eight years; and his administration was fraught with corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement. As Bush departed from the stage, and historians characterized him as one of the worst presidents in American history, leading far-right voices generally pretended Bush had no business characterizing himself as a "conservative."

Two years later, the man who couldn't govern can throw a baseball, and that's apparently enough to send Lowry-style starbursts across the television screens of far-right activists everywhere.

Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Anonymous Texas Republicans have begun distributing flyers in African-American neighborhoods, telling locals that straight ticket Democratic votes are being miscounted as Republican votes. That's obviously not true.

* In the state of Washington, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows the U.S. Senate race slipping away from Democrats. PPP has Dino Rossi (R) edging past Sen. Patty Murray (D), 50% to 48%. The latest McClatchy/Marist poll, meanwhile, shows Murray with a one-point lead, 49% to 48%.

* In Nevada's U.S. Senate race, a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Sharron Angle (R) up by one over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), 47% to 46%. It's the eighth consecutive poll showing Reid trailing, though all show Angle's lead at below 5 points. For what it's worth, Jon Ralston, Nevada's leading political reporter, still thinks Reid will come out on top.

* In Illinois' U.S. Senate race, a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Mark Kirk (R) leading Alexi Giannoulias (D), 46% to 42%. The report also noted, "The presence of the third party candidates in the race seems to really be hurting Giannoulias."

* In Kentucky's U.S. Senate race, a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows that race slipping away from Dems, too. PPP now has Rand Paul (R) leading Jack Conway (D) by 15 points, 55% to 40%.

* Ohio's gubernatorial race appears to be tightening significantly as the contest nears its end. PPP shows John Kasich (R) leading incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D) by one point, 49% to 48%; a Columbus Dispatch poll shows Kasich up by two, 49% to 47%; and Quinnipiac shows Kasich ahead by one point, 47% to 46%.

* In Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, Pat Toomey (R) leads Joe Sestak (D) in all the new polling, but by varying margins. PPP has Toomey up by five (51% to 46%); a Susquehanna Polling & Research poll has Toomey ahead by two (46% to 44%); the Morning Call/Muhlenberg tracking poll has Toomey by two (48% to 44%); McClatchy/Marist has Toomey winning by seven (52% to 45%); and Quinnipiac shows Toomey up by five (50% to 45%).

* In Colorado's U.S. Senate race, the latest McClatchy/Marist shows Ken Buck (R) leading Sen. Michael Bennet (D), 49% to 45%, though PPP shows Buck with a smaller lead, 49% to 48%.

* In Alaska's U.S. Senate race, a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Joe Miller (R) as exceedingly unpopular, but winning anyway with 37% support. Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Scott McAdams (D) are tied in the poll with 30% each.

* In Wisconsin's U.S. Senate race, the latest McClatchy/Marist poll shows Rob Johnson (R) mainlining his lead over Sen. Russ Feingold (D), 52% to 45%.

* In California, a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Jerry Brown (D) leading the gubernatorial race by five points, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading the U.S. Senate race by four points.

* In Florida's U.S. Senate race, Marco Rubio (R) appears to be cruising to an easy win. Mason-Dixon shows him with a 17-point lead over Gov. Charlie Crist (I), while Quinnipiac shows Rubio leading by 14 points. Florida's gubernatorial race, meanwhile, remains one of the closest contests in the country.

* In West Virginia's U.S. Senate race, a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Gov. Joe Manchin (D) up by five over John Raese (R), 51% to 46%.

* And in Connecticut, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Richard Blumenthal (D) up by nine in the U.S. Senate race, while PPP shows Tom Foley (R) edging past Dan Malloy (D) in the gubernatorial race, 49% to 47%.

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT.... When we last checked in with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), he was chatting with MSNBC's Chuck Todd in September. Todd, to his credit, asked about the disconnect between Congress fighting over tax cuts for millionaires while one in seven Americans live in poverty. Bayh replied that "things like that can wait." He was talking about the poor, not the tax cuts.

This morning, Bayh was back on MSNBC, predicting major losses for his party tomorrow. Dave Weigel highlighted the fact that there isn't enough attention right now on "how glib and useless he is."

The problem with Bayh is that almost everything he says is useless and divorced from context, and he doesn't do much more than talk. The victory of Scott Brown "should have been a wake-up call," he said to Morning Joe hosts. A wake-up call to do what? To not add to the debt. But did he support the health care bill? Yes, it was a great achievement, but the timing was wrong for a "spending bill." The CBO says the bill is actually going to cut the deficit, but no matter -- Bayh is feeling at you, from his gut, and he thinks that bill he voted for was a disaster that was a great achievement, or something.

Watching Bayh it's clear that he is a senator. It's not clear why. Did he introduce the Bayh Fiscal Austerity Bill of 2009? Did he crack heads over the Bayh Lawsuit Reform Bill of 2010? Not as far as I can tell.

This has long been part of Bayh's m.o. -- plenty of lectures, weak follow-through.

Indeed, Bayh is retiring at the same time he's presenting himself as a beacon of ideas and quality governance. Why doesn't he stick around and try to make things better? Bayh doesn't feel like it. He wants to help, but he prefers to walk away, even if it makes things worse.

Bayh announced he'd walk away, despite being on track for re-election, despite the fact that his departure would push his priorities further away, despite an alleged desire to try to make things better. Tomorrow, voters in Indiana will elect a corporate lobbyist to replace him.

And yet, there he was on television again, with yet another lecture about how bad his party is, how bad the process is, and how bad Congress looks in the eyes of voters.

I don't know who'll miss Bayh's more insufferable qualities, but I imagine the number is pretty low.

Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

THE COMING FIGHT OVER 'DECOUPLING' THE TAX CUTS.... No matter what happens tomorrow, policymakers will still have to resolve the lingering dispute over Bush-era tax rates. President Obama wants to make permanent the lower rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, while allowing Clinton-era rates to return for the wealthy. Republicans insist on keeping all of the Bush-era rates, and adding the cost (about $4 trillion) to the debt.

As you no doubt recall, Congress adjourned before reaching a conclusion. At this point, however, the White House has an idea about how to proceed, and as one senior Democratic aide told the Washington Post, "The concept of 'decoupling' is a hot topic right now."

With Republicans poised to gain ground in Tuesday's elections, the White House is losing hope that Congress will approve its plan to raise taxes on the nation's wealthiest families and is increasingly focusing on a new strategy that would preserve tax breaks for both the wealthy and the middle class.

According to people familiar with talks at the White House and among senior Democrats on Capitol Hill, breaking apart the Bush administration tax cuts is now being discussed as a more realistic goal. That strategy calls for permanent extension of cuts that benefit families earning less than $250,000 a year, and temporary extension of cuts on income above that amount.

The key is to "decouple" the rates for the middle class from the rates for the wealthy. President Obama, under this scenario, would essentially offer the deal -- Congress makes the lower rates for the vast majority of the country permanent, and he'll concede to a temporary extension of the breaks for the rich.

Republicans would accept such a bargain, right? Wrong. By all appearances, "decoupling" is the opposite of what the GOP wants -- the key to the Republican strategy is holding middle-class breaks hostage to get the lower rates for the wealthy. Under Obama's potential proposal, the benefits for the rich would be temporary, and when they would be due to expire, Republicans would be forced to fight for an unpopular tax-cut plan that primarily benefits millionaires and billionaires.

Worse, there's no guarantee the president wouldn't veto an extension in 2011 or 2012, even if the GOP could get it through Congress.

So, we'd start off with two opposites: one side wants Clinton-era rates for everyone in order to reduce the deficit, and the other side wants Bush-era rates for everyone, regardless of the deficit.

Obama offered a compromise: lower rates for the middle class, while allowing rates for the wealthy to expire on schedule, just as the GOP designed. Republicans said that compromise wasn't good enough.

So, Obama appears poised for another compromise: permanently lower rates for the middle class, an extension of lower rates for the rich. Republicans will almost certainly say that compromise isn't good enough, either.

When one side isn't willing to make concessions, good-faith negotiations are practically impossible.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share

WHERE WILL YOUR TUCHUS BE TOMORROW?.... We talked yesterday about the latest data showing Democrats actually faring pretty well with registered voters, but struggling with likely voters.

Rachel Maddow had a good segment on this last night (and I didn't just enjoy it because she quoted me). "The country likes Democrats better," Rachel explained, "but the people who don't are the people planning to vote.

"The distance between Democrats winning versus Democrats losing on Tuesday is the distance between your tuchus on the couch if you're going to vote for Democrats and your tuchus actually making it to the voting booth on Tuesday if you're going to vote for Democrats. That's the distance.

"Common wisdom, schmommon-wisdom. When you're figuring out what this means for the House, and the Senate, and the governors, and what have you, that's essentially the important difference -- Democrats have the voters. It is only a question of whether or not Democrats get the votes. That's what remains to be seen."

When we look back on this cycle, I suspect three angles will be the most significant in terms of impact. The first is the role of secret campaign money in the post-Citizens United landscape. The second is the role of Tea Partiers in the GOP primaries. And third is the simple matter of the listless Democratic rank-and-file just not showing up in comparable numbers to the hyper-enthused Republican base.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

MORE NEWS CORP CONTRIBUTIONS.... Californians will vote tomorrow on a ballot initiative called Proposition 24, which would repeal some corporate tax breaks in the hopes of closing the state's budget gap.

If you've been watching the Fox Business Network, you've been hearing quite a bit about the measure. What you haven't heard, however, is that the network's corporate parent has spent $1.3 million to defeat Prop 24.

In five consecutive hours of live reports on Tuesday, a Fox Business correspondent, Adam Shapiro, was stationed at Cambridge of California, a small furniture manufacturing facility in Gardena. Mr. Shapiro repeatedly said the proposition could drive businesses -- specifically small businesses, not media titans -- out of California, and he said "332,000 jobs" were "on the line."

Tracy Byrnes, the anchor for one of the reports, expressed the opinion that "the proposition was setting up businesses to be destroyed, quite frankly."

Yet in its expanded coverage of the issue, Fox did not disclose the News Corporation's donation to a group working to defeat Proposition 24. Nor did Fox report that the small-business man it featured in the news reports was asked to do the interview by the same group, No on 24 -- Stop the Jobs Tax.

There's been quite a bit of this going on lately. This is the same News Corp, of course, that made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News hasn't been forthcoming about these conflict-of-interest details to its viewers (not that anyone really has any illusions about the network's partisanship).

For the record, the Fox Business Network claims it didn't know about its parent company's efforts on Prop 24, and has offered extensive coverage of the California ballot initiative just because.

I'm beginning to think News Corp's outlets aren't exactly credible, and may not have the highest journalistic standards. Call it a hunch.

Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

Bookmark and Share

THE LIMITED VALUE OF THE 'VOTE FOR THE PERSON' MAXIM.... The New York Times's Sunday magazine ran a brief interview with Garry Wills yesterday , and his chat with Deborah Solomon didn't appear to go especially well. He twice referred to a line of questioning as "silly."

But reader C.W. emailed to note the last exchange between the two, which stood out.

Solomon: Whom will you be voting for in this Tuesday's election?

Wills: I always vote the party. It's ridiculous not to. You may like a person who is Republican, but if you vote for that person, you're voting for all the apparatus that comes along with it.

Wills, for the record, did not specify exactly which party would have his support on Election Day, though I suppose it's not too difficult to guess his intentions.

As to his observation, though, I've lost count of how many times I've heard people say, with some degree of pride, "I vote for the person, not the party." I get the sense those who repeat it consider it evidence of high-minded independence.

But I've never fully understood what the sentiment is supposed to mean, exactly. After all, most of the time, those Ds and Rs candidates put in parentheses after their names are not just for show -- they generally stand for something. One party wants to pursue policies that would take the country in one direction; the other party has a very different direction in mind. Especially as the differences between the parties become greater than at any time in generations, voters can express a preference between two visions that have precious little in common.

With that in mind, the "I vote for the person" crowd is making an odd argument. These folks seem to be suggesting they're not especially concerned with policy differences, policy visions, or agendas, but rather, are principally concerned with personalities. Maybe the candidate seems more personable; maybe they ran better commercials. Either way, as a substantive matter, the "vote for the person, not the party" approach seems pretty weak. Indeed, it's what leads people to express a series of policy priorities, and then vote for a candidate who opposes all of those priorities -- a dynamic that's as exasperating as it is counter-productive.

Michael Kinsley had a piece on voting party lines a few years ago, and its point still resonates: "There is nothing wrong with voting for the party and not the person.... A candidate's party affiliation doesn't tell you everything you would like to know, but it tells you something. In fact, it tells you a lot -- enough so that it even makes sense to vote your party preference even when you know nothing else about a candidate. Or even vote for a candidate that you actively dislike."

Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share

A 'GARBLED, OUT OF CONTEXT RECORDING'.... Apparently one of the bigger campaign controversies of the day yesterday comes out of Alaska, with a dubious recording being pushed by a far-right website known for pushing dubious recordings.

Is another Andrew Breitbart Web site production about to be unmasked as bogus?

Breitbart's Big Journalism site is making an incendiary accusation: That reporters at the Anchorage CBS affiliate KTVA were caught conspiring to damage Tea Party Senate candidate Joe Miller. Big Journalism posted a snippet of audio allegedly showing this: It features KTVA reporters talking among themselves while -- unbeknownst to them -- they were accidentally being recorded on the voicemail of Miller's campaign manager.

But it's unclear from the recording precisely what, if anything, was being plotted. And now the station is adamantly denying the charges, claiming the audio was clipped and taken out of the fuller context. KTVA general manager Jerry Bever sends over a statement claiming the "complete recording was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign."

I'd like to think skepticism would rule the day in a situation like this. After all, in the wake of the Shirley Sherrod fiasco, suspect Breitbart-published recordings aren't exactly proof of much.

The local CBS affiliate is pushing back hard against the "garbled, out of context recording," explaining, "To allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do."

Nevertheless, Miller's highest-profile backer, Alaska's former half-term governor, is raising the visibility of the allegations. Yesterday, Sarah Palin seized on Breitbart's piece to suggest that the initials CBS stand for "Corrupt Bastards Club."

Here's hoping Palin realizes there is no "s" in "club."

The story, such as it is, has the feel of manufactured outrage, and is probably being pushed by a campaign that fears its support is fading as it reaches the finish line. "The media is out to get us" is a standard GOP pitch to get the base riled up, whether it makes sense or not.

In this case, outlets that run with this as a credible story are almost certainly making a mistake.

Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE WEEKEND.... Here's a recap of what we covered over the weekend:

On Sunday, we talked about...

* Arguments that a Republican majority would be reasonable and open to compromise are very hard to believe.

* The gap between "registered" voters and "likely" voters is the difference between a good Election Day and an awful one.

* Is the Republican establishment giving up on Joe Miller's Senate campaign in Alaska? Maybe.

* David Broder argued the economy will improve if President Obama prepares for a war with Iran. Seriously.

* ABC News invited right-wing propagandist Andrew Breitbart to be part of the network's election-night team, and the decision hasn't gone over well.

* The "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" packs the D.C. Mall, and features sharp critiques of the media.

And on Saturday...

* Exactly how bad would conditions get in the U.S. in the event of a Republican majority in Congress? Krugman helps paint an ugly picture.

* President Obama uses his weekly address to highlight GOP leaders' staunch opposition to compromise.

* Sharron Angle might be willing to talk about national security and military policy ... but only if she's elected to the Senate first.

* "This Week in God" was chock full of interesting items.

* Mark Kirk explained his tendency to vote for bills he actually opposes because of his own "ignorance" and a "lack of understanding."

* A McDonald's franchise in Ohio is home to one of the more blatant examples of voter-intimidation tactics this year.

* And additional details about the latest attempted terrorist bombing continue to come to light.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share
 




 

 

Contribute to Washington Monthly

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 ---

Drug Rehab

Addiction Treatment Centers

Alcohol Treatment Center

Loans

Long Distance Moving Companies

FREE Phone Card

Flowers

Personal Loan

Personal Loans

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs

Bad Credit Loans