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

February 21, 2011

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

* Libya starts to unravel: "Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's regime showed more signs of crumbling Monday as scores of people were reportedly killed in the capital, witnesses said military helicopters shot at protesters on the ground, and the U.S. ordered non-essential diplomats to leave the North African nation. The six-day-old uprising had reached the capital, Tripoli, by Monday morning, with reports of buildings being set ablaze and looting in some neighborhoods. In Libya's second-largest city of Benghazi, anti-government demonstrators celebrated on the streets, with reports growing that the city was now under their control."

* The violence towards unarmed civilians in Libya is heartbreaking: "The faltering government of the Libyan strongman Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi struck back at mounting protests against his 40-year rule, as helicopters and warplanes besieged parts of the capital Monday, according to witnesses and news reports from Tripoli."

* How bad has it gotten for the Libyan regime? This bad: "Members of Libya's mission to the United Nations publicly repudiated Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Monday, calling him a genocidal war criminal responsible for mass shootings of demonstrators protesting against his four decades in power. They called upon him to resign. The repudiation, led by Libya's deputy permanent representative at a news conference at the mission's headquarters in New York, amounted to the most high-profile defection of Libyan diplomats in the anti-Qaddafi uprising that has convulsed Libya over the past week."

* Afghanistan: "A suicide bomber blew himself up at the entrance to an Afghan government office Monday, killing at least 30 people -- many who were waiting in line to obtain government identification cards, police said."

* A disgraced, racist Tea Party leader presents his new anti-union plan: get right-wing activists to pose as SEIU organizers and cause trouble.

* Apparently, it's still possible for pundits' love of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) to get more ridiculous.

* If it seems odd to have Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate flee to deny the chamber a quorum, remember, it's been a fairly common tactic for many years. Abraham Lincoln literally jumped out a window 170 years ago to deny a quorum in Illinois.

* Good point from Nate Silver: "Rasmussen should probably just drop the pretense that they are non-partisan."

* Concerns rise over Rep. David Wu's (D-Ore.) mental health.

* Arizona has an odd low-cost college plan: "Since the state evidently has no plans to give the public college more money (which could reduce tuition), the solution appears to be to give Arizona residents some low-quality education options."

* I couldn't care less whether Rush Limbaugh is fat, but when he goes after First Lady Michelle Obama on the air, suggesting that she's overweight, I wonder if Limbaugh's drug addiction has damaged his eyesight, too.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

Bookmark and Share

IF RICK SCOTT HAD BEEN GOVERNOR IN 1956.... Last week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), for reasons that no one can figure out, deliberately turned down federal funding -- and tens of thousands of jobs -- for a high-speed rail project. The reaction has been less than positive, and even Republicans from D.C. to Miami found the decision incomprehensible.

But there was something the senior senator from Florida said the other day that stuck with me.

Democrats nationally and in Florida sharply criticized Scott's decision as being short-sighted.

"If Florida would've had a governor who rejected President Eisenhower's idea, we wouldn't have an interstate system," U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who has been vocally supportive of the project even as conservatives attacked him for it, said via Twitter Wednesday afternoon.

Nelson's talking, of course, about the interstate highway system, championed by Eisenhower and approved by Congress in the mid-1950s. It's a good line that drives a larger point home nicely.

But I'm wondering if there's more to this. I know a bit about the history behind the system, but I'm genuinely curious -- were there governors who fought against interstate highways in their states?

If President Obama proposed something like this today, we can probably imagine the reaction. Right-wing activists would demand to know where in the Constitution it says the federal government can build a highway; Republicans would file lawsuits in carefully-chosen courts; Fox News would call it a socialist experiment; Bachmann and Beck would tell us it's a plot to make it easier for the president to send Americans to re-education camps run by George Soros; and ridiculous governors would resist this oppressive and unprecedented federal overreach.

But that's only because the contemporary Republican Party has become so ridiculous. Did Eisenhower actually have to deal with similar stupidity? Was the interstate highway system ever in jeopardy because of hysterical ideologues?

I'd welcome the input of historians and/or experts in this area.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

Bookmark and Share

BACHMANN FINDS HER WMD.... When Glenn Beck's latest nonsense comes up, the conversation often turns to his sincerity. We really don't know for sure whether the Fox News personality actually believes his deranged observations, or whether it's an elaborate act. Beck's either deeply disturbed or he's exceptionally good at pretending to be deeply disturbed.

Over the weekend, though, we were reminded that no such debate exists with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). The ignominious Republican, arguably Congress' most ridiculous member, was in South Carolina Saturday night, apparently as part of Bachmann's alleged national ambitions.

Those who heard her learned, among other things, that the federal tax code is a "weapon of mass destruction."

Bachmann also said there's a business bubble because the U.S. has the "highest corporate income tax rate in the world."

It is the tax code she blames for the "business bubble." She said, "We need to get rid of the blood-sucking tax code. It's got to go, just scrap the current tax code," adding that it is "a weapon of mass destruction."

Bachmann also has a new idea on how to address entitlement costs.

Bachmann blasted entitlement spending and urged reform in Social Security. "The problem is our health care welfare spending which is out of control," she said. "The good news is we can solve this problem. It needs to be a market based approach."

She offered up a somewhat non-traditional solution: "We need to simply tell people the facts, like Glenn Beck, with that chalkboard, that man can explain anything. I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this."

After complaining about "cohabitating couples" and the government helping students afford college tuition, Bachmann went on to argue, "The bureaucrats now hate our values; there's a war on marriage, a war on family, a war on fertility all while funding and promoting abortion."

Just to be clear, there was no indication that Bachmann was kidding. By all accounts, she believes all of this.

What's more, her unhinged tirades brought Bachmann's audience "to their feet" and -- this is my favorite part -- the chair of Spartanburg County Republican Party called Bachmann "inspirational" and "very presidential."

Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share

STUCK IN THE WRONG CONVERSATION.... During the hour-long episode of "Meet the Press" yesterday, there was exactly one reference to the U.S. unemployment rate, uttered by former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D). The word "spending" was used 40 times.

The very first sentence of the broadcast was host David Gregory telling viewers, "The battle to rein in government is shaping up to be the major fight not only of this year, but of the 2012 campaign."

There was no discussion of how, exactly, this became "the major fight," only that the political establishment has decreed it to be. If you thought economic growth and job creation was at the center of the policy discussion in Washington, I'm afraid your attitudes are so 2010.

There are very few prominent media voices whose priorities remain sound. E.J. Dionne Jr., thankfully, is one of them.

Take five steps back and consider the nature of the political conversation in our nation's capital. You would never know that it's taking place at a moment when unemployment is still at 9 percent, when wages for so many people are stagnating at best and when the United States faces unprecedented challenges to its economic dominance.

No, Washington is acting as if the only real problem the United States confronts is the budget deficit; the only test of leadership is whether the president is willing to make big cuts in programs that protect the elderly; and the largest threat to our prosperity comes from public employees.

Consider another example. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) twice acknowledged publicly that his proposed spending cuts would force more American workers from their jobs, on purpose. The first time he said it, Boehner told reporters, "So be it."

How many times did this rather startling remark come up in any of the five major Sunday morning public affairs shows? Zero. It was simply ignored.

And the reason it was ignored isn't hard to understand: pesky Americans may think jobs and the economy are the most pressing national issue, but the political world has no use for such parochial concerns. The establishment has moved on.

This reached a farcical level on "Meet the Press" when Republican strategist Ed Gillespie insisted that President Obama is "out of touch." Why? Because the president is committed to creating jobs, promoting innovation, and cultivating economic development through high-speed rail.

To be "in touch," apparently, is to consider such priorities unimportant.

Dionne concluded, "In his State of the Union address, Obama made a good case that budget cutting is too small an agenda and that this is also a time for more government -- yes, more government -- in areas that would expand opportunities and strengthen the economy. That argument has been entirely drowned out. If politics is reduced to a crabbed and crabby accountants' war, Obama loses. The country will, too."

Steve Benen 12:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

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:

* Late last week, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) of New Mexico announced he will not seek re-election in 2012. He's the fourth member of the Democratic caucus to retire in advance of the coming cycle -- following Sens. Jim Webb (Va.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Kent Conrad (N.D.) -- making next year that much more difficult for the party.

* In the race to replace Bingaman, some credible Democratic candidates, including state Auditor Hector Balderas and U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich, have already strongly hinted that they'll run, and 2010 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Diane Denish is also expected to launch a campaign.

* Among New Mexico Republicans, former Rep. Heather Wilson and Rep. Steve Pearce are both reportedly in the mix.

* In Connecticut, Rep. Joe Courtney (D) announced this morning he is not running for the Senate seat currently held by retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I). Two other Dems are already in the race -- Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz and Rep. Christopher Murphy.

* On a related note, the Republican field in Connecticut hasn't come together just yet, but GOP officials are reportedly trying to recruit state Sen. L. Scott Frantz.

* Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made it official late last week that she is not running for the Senate in her home state of Arizona. A DHS spokesperson told reporters, "She cares deeply about Arizona, but the Secretary intends to continue doing the job that the President asked her to do -- protecting the American people from terrorism and other threats to our country."

* RNC Chairman Reince Priebus' principal goal at this point is to keep a low profile and raise a lot of money. So far, he's doing just that -- Priebus raised $3.5 million in his first two weeks on the job, and has been largely unseen in the media.

* And in case Dems needed yet another reminder of their difficulties in the South, the party lost a state Senate special election in Louisiana the other day, giving the Republicans control of the chamber for the first time since Reconstruction.

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

Bookmark and Share

WALKER NOT EXACTLY OPEN TO COMPROMISE.... Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) union-busting efforts aren't making compromise easy, but that doesn't mean options aren't available.

The most obvious is also the easiest -- state workers are prepared to accept less pay and fewer benefits, and in exchange, Walker would be expected to drop his punitive and unnecessary demands that workers give up their collective-bargaining rights. The governor has already said this isn't a deal he would even consider.

Which leads us to another possible compromise.

With Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker maintaining a hard line on his budget bill and Democratic senators refusing to return to Madison to vote, attention is turning to a group of moderate Republican senators to negotiate a compromise to the stalemate that has drawn thousands of protesters to the state capital for a sixth straight day.

The proposal, written by Sen. Dale Schultz and first floated in the Republican caucus early last week, calls for most collective bargaining rights of public employee unions to be eliminated -- per Mr. Walker's bill -- but then reinstated in 2013, said Mr. Schultzs's chief of staff Todd Allbaugh.

Now, as compromises go, this doesn't sound like much of a deal for state employees. The state would temporarily strip workers of the collective-bargaining rights, but then bring them back later.

As it turns out, it doesn't much matter whether labor would go for something like this -- Walker announced this morning that this isn't good enough, either. He wants both the cuts and the union-busting provisions, and will accept nothing less.

That said, it is interesting that a Republican state senator is open to a resolution that would deny the conservative governor his full agenda. It's worth keeping an eye out for other cracks in the united GOP front.

Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share

WISCONSIN, IN CONTEXT.... Once state employees in Wisconsin announced their willingness to accept benefit cuts, but not the revocation of their collective bargaining rights, the nature of the debate changed. It looked as if Gov. Scott Walker (R) was advancing a punitive, unnecessary union-busting agenda, but once his budget demands had been met, and he still refused to work with Democrats and his own state employees, appearances no longer mattered -- this is a punitive, unnecessary union-busting agenda.

The next question is why Walker and other Republican leaders consider this such a high priority. The obvious answer is that the GOP has always been hostile to labor; it's part of the party's raison d'etre. But it's worth taking the next step and appreciating what drives the antagonism.

Paul Krugman's column today makes the case well.

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we're a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we're more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it's important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don't have to love unions, you don't have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they're among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years -- which it has -- that's to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

There's a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America's oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.

I'm reminded, from time to time, of something John Boehner said in July, when he accused Democrats of "snuffing out the America that I grew up in." This occurred to me in the wake of the GOP's anti-union efforts because the America Boehner grew up in featured large union memberships throughout society, and the "right to form a union was broadly accepted."

If Boehner wants to protect the norms of that bygone era, and prevent the "snuffing out" of the America he grew up in, the House Speaker is fighting for the wrong side.

Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

RSS UPDATE.... Several readers have run into trouble with the Political Animal RSS feed. Our apologies -- we made some adjustments the other day and I think everything is now on track.

For those whose feed hasn't updated in a couple of days, please re-subscribe -- it should only take a moment or two -- and that should fix the problem.

Sorry for the inconvenience. If, after you re-subscribe, the problem persists, let me know.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share

THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF OVERREACH.... Just seven weeks into 2011, Republicans at the state and national level have removed words like "modest" and "incremental" from their lexicon. In the wake of last year's midterm victories, GOP officials are convinced they have a mandate to pursue a bold, right-wing agenda.

In Congress, Republicans are gutting health care, slashing spending on domestic priorities like education, ignoring job creation, and pushing a variety of culture-war measures, targeting, among other things, reproductive rights. At the same time, in statehouses, GOP officials are cutting taxes and picking fights with state employees.

The NYT ponders the likelihood of the dreaded "overreach."

[I]n the view of officials from both major political parties, Republicans may be risking the same kind of electoral backlash Democrats suffered after they were perceived as overreaching.

Public surveys suggest that most voters do not share the Republicans' fervor for the deep cuts adopted by the House, or for drastically slashing the power of public-sector unions. And independent voters have historically been averse to displays of political partisanship that have been played out over the last week.

"If Republicans push too far and overreach their mandate, they will be punished by independent voters, just as they were in 1996," said Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist who was a senior adviser to President George W. Bush. "Voters said they wanted bold action. They are getting bold action. But Republicans need to be constantly reminded that the last election was a referendum for change, not a referendum for the G.O.P."

Now, the article seems to take it as a given that President Obama overreached in 2009. I tend to think that's ridiculous -- the Democratic agenda was consistently modest and in line with the American mainstream, even in facing massive crises -- though it appears the establishment has embraced the meme with both arms.

Having said that, it's still worth appreciating two larger points. The first is that Republicans genuinely seem to believe they have a mandate for a far-right agenda, and they're wrong.

"They are taking some kind of public expression of deep concern about the economy and turning it into something entirely different," former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said. "They are making a mistake. They say: 'Well, we won the election. Elections have consequences.' And I say, yes, and we are going to have another election next year."

This is reinforced by ample polling showing Americans approving of cuts in the abstract, but balking at GOP-favored policies like slashing funds for education, health care, and other domestic priorities. (There's a reason the DCCC was smiling after Republicans approved their cuts early Saturday morning.)

The second is that overreach always leads to the same result: a backlash. The listless Democratic base is waking up, getting engaged, and finding themselves more energized than they've been in a while.

The irony is, John Boehner and other GOP leaders saw this as a distinct possibility before the new Congress began. They saw what happened to Gingrich in 1995, and they had every intention of avoiding the appearance of overreach.

But the party can't seem to help itself. The question isn't whether Republicans will pay a price, but how big it will be.

Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN THE PARTIES TALK PAST EACH OTHER.... On CBS's "Face the Nation" yesterday, we heard from the top two lawmakers on the House Budget Committee: Republican Chairman Paul Ryan and Democratic Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen. (Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to see a Democrat was invited onto a Sunday show.) The important part of their discussion was appreciating the competing priorities on display.

Ryan conceded that there's no way the Senate will approve the House budget cuts. "My guess is we'll probably have some short-term extensions while we negotiate these things -- with spending cuts," he said, explaining how a GOP-led government shutdown can be avoided.

Remember, there were basically three options here: (1) strike a deal for the rest of the fiscal year; (2) pass a temporary extension while negotiations continue; or (3) shutdown. Ryan, like the rest of the Republican leadership, now wants (4) policymakers can approve a temporary spending measure while negotiations continue, but only if it includes vague-but-deep cuts. The priority, as Ryan sees it, has to be slashing spending, laying off public-sector workers, and reducing the deficit.

And then viewers heard a different perspective.

Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen argued on Sunday that 800,000 Americans could lose their jobs if the GOP's budget proposal was enacted, and warned against making "reckless" cuts to the federal budget.

In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Van Hollen said that "everybody agrees we need to get the deficit under control," but argued that drastic cuts in 2011 would damage an already fragile economy.

"The bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility specifically warned against deep, immediate cuts in the year 2011. Why? Because it would hurt a fragile economy and put people out of work," he told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "In fact, there are estimates that about 800,000 Americans would lose their jobs if you do this in a reckless manner."

Van Hollen criticized House Speaker John Boehner for what he described as a "callous" attitude toward the prospect of American job loss in the face of budget cuts, and argued that Republicans were taking the "wrong approach" toward mending the economy.

Van Hollen is right on the merits, and it was delightful hearing the argument actually being aired on a Sunday show where these observations are generally verboten, but the more important point here is that the Maryland Democrat was presenting a different goal: his priority is protecting the fragile economic recovery. Ryan's goal is reducing the deficit Republicans helped create.

They were, in other words, largely talking past one another. This would be a challenge if the parties shared the same priorities, but disagreed on how to get from here to there, but it's much worse when they're not even reading from the same map.

Just a reminder: the House and Senate are in recess this week, and the funding for the government runs out on March 4 -- a week from Friday. When lawmakers return to Washington, they'll have literally five days to find some kind of agreement.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE WEEKEND.... We covered a fair amount of ground over the weekend. Here's a quick overview of you may have missed.

On Sunday, we talked about:

* What should the public expect if/when Republicans shut down the government?

* Remember Donald Rumsfeld? He still doesn't know what he's talking about.

* Charles Lane's piece on the labor dispute in Wisconsin was an offensive mess.

* It's not up to Montana politicians to will the climate crisis away.

* House Republicans are convinced "we're broke," but not broke enough to pull ineffectual, taxpayer-financed NASCAR ads.

* In Wisconsin, the protests just keep growing.

On Saturday, we talked about:

* As House Republicans continue to try to gut the health care system, the Congressional Budget Office keeps telling them what the GOP doesn't want to hear.

* The far-right hates "social engineering," except when it doesn't.

* As if he didn't have enough problems, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) has some disturbing assumptions about African-American lawmakers.

* In targeting "domestic" priorities, the House GOP actually voted to undermine national security priorities, including nuclear security.

* In "This Week in God," we covered, among other things, clergy support for unions in Wisconsin.

* Dana Loesch is off to an inauspicious start at CNN.

* If Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) were acting in good faith, labor leaders have offered him a terrific compromise. Too bad he's not acting in good faith.

* At 4:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, House Republicans approved brutal, job-killing budget cuts they know have no chance in the Senate.

Steve Benen 7:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share
 
February 20, 2011

WHO'LL LOSE IF/WHEN REPUBLICANS SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT (AGAIN).... With 12 days left until a possible, arguably likely, shutdown of the federal government, there's quite a bit of talk this weekend over whether Republicans, just two months into the new Congress, will actually pull the proverbial trigger.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has offered a sensible way out, keeping the status quo in place for just a few weeks, pushing the deadline from March 4 to March 31. The point would be to leave more room for negotiations, though GOP leaders quickly rejected Pelosi's plan.

The talk, not surprisingly, is dominating much of the Sunday shows this morning. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told "Face the Nation," for example, he believes House Speaker John Boehner "seems to be on a course that would inevitably lead to a shutdown."

But while the wrangling continues, it's also worth thinking about the eventual consequences of the shutdown that may come a week from Friday. Newt Gingrich and congressional Republicans shutdown the government twice during President Clinton's first term, and while some government functions have changed in the 15 years since, the L.A. Times reflects on what happened last time to help set the stage for what might happen this time.

The Constitution and U.S. statutes prohibit agencies from operating without an express appropriation from Congress, meaning a lapse in funding would trigger layoffs and fractures in services.

Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) each said last week that a shutdown would delay Social Security checks and disrupt other services considered vital to millions of Americans.

In the 1995-96 shutdowns, Social Security checks continued to be mailed, although many government payments were delayed as officials struggled to keep enough employees on the job on an emergency basis, as laws allow, to continue service.

Many other Social Security services halted, including responses to requests for retirement and disability claims, address changes and Social Security numbers needed for work.

During that time, museums and national parks were closed and applications for visas and passports went unprocessed. A downturn in the housing market was blamed on a halt to transactions involving the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration, now called the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Government economic reports were delayed, and federal employees went without paychecks for as long as the shutdowns lasted. Claims for veterans benefits also faced delays.

In many respects, it's hard to know exactly what to expect, because existing shutdown contingency plans haven't been tested. There are ambiguities as to which government functions are considered "essential" -- the Transportation Security Administration, for example, did not exist in 1996 -- and decisions have not yet been made about officials expected to perform "emergency" services.

But remember, as far as some Republicans are concerned, it doesn't much matter. Just a month before the midterm elections, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) not only welcomed a shutdown, he delivered a speech on what to expect. Americans, he predicted at the time, will say things like, "Daddy can't go to the VA, the national parks are closed." But, Westmoreland added, just so long as far-right activists stand with Republicans during the shutdown, the GOP will "hold the line" and fare better than the last time the party pulled this stunt.

Also note, the economy was much stronger in the mid-1990s than it is now. In 2011, we have a fragile recovery, which will be put at risk if most of the 2 million civilian government employees can't work, can't earn a paycheck, and can't spend money.

Congressional Republicans, in other words, aren't just playing with fire when it comes to public services -- they're putting the economy at risk in order to push brutal spending cuts, which also put the economy at risk.

Thanks again, midterm voters, for putting the country in this position.

Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (80)

Bookmark and Share

RETIREMENT HASN'T IMPROVED RUMSFELD.... When Donald Rumsfeld was forced from the Pentagon four years ago, he departed the stage as a humiliated and widely-loathed figure. After a series of catastrophic failures, no one, not even Republicans, found ol' Rummy remotely credible. He left a beaten man.

Four years later, Rumsfeld has published a truly ridiculous book, which offers him an opportunity to go on national television and bash the president.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disputes the notion that President Barack Obama has made America more popular around the globe than it was under his former boss, President George W. Bush.

Asked on CNN's "State of the Union" by host Candy Crowley whether the U.S. is looked at differently than under his tenure, Rumsfeld replied, "I don't think there's data that supports that."

"He has made a practice of trying to apologize for America," Rumsfeld said of Obama. "I personally am proud of America."

Let's unpack this a bit. On the first point, there's all kinds of data to support the notion that the standing of the United States has improved around the globe since President Obama took office, replacing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. This was evident six months into the Obama presidency, and it continues. Obama ran in 2008 vowing to win back the international respect the United States had lost, and he's been widely successful in doing just that.

Rumsfeld may not like the "data," but reality doesn't much care what he prefers.

On the second point, I realize Republicans are pretty invested in this notion that the president has "apologized for America," but in Grown-Up Land, this is simply imaginary. You'll notice, of course, that conservatives bring this ridiculous talking point up quite a bit, without actually pointing to any examples. There's a reason for this.

If, however, Rumsfeld wants to argue that President Obama has made an effort to restore frayed international alliances, and has felt compelled to acknowledge U.S. missteps in the past, that's certainly true. Of course, those efforts were made necessary by none other than Donald "Old Europe" Rumsfeld, who was directly responsible for dragging the name of the United States through the mud, undermining our reputation in the process.

To accuse President Obama of "apologizing for America," is idiotic. But if Rumsfeld wants to apologize for embarrassing America, I'm all ears.

Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

Bookmark and Share

THE WRONG LANE.... Over the last week or so, we've seen efforts to equate the labor dispute in Wisconsin to the political revolution in Egypt, some of which strikes me as misplaced. But the Washington Post's Charles Lane, in a deeply disappointing piece, instead draws a connection between developments in Madison and last month's tragic shootings in Tucson. (via DougJ)

It has been just over five weeks since a deranged gunman in a Tucson suburb left six people dead and 13 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). In the wake of that horrific tragedy, Americans reflected on -- and argued about -- the possible connection between the violence and today's often nasty, polarized political discourse.

President Obama, in a moving eulogy for the fallen, called on all Americans to "pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

Yet today in Wisconsin, anger and vilification are once again the order of the day -- and the incivility emanates from the progressive end of the spectrum....

Perhaps most disappointing of all is that the president himself, rather than living up to the words he spoke so eloquently in Tuscon [sic], has chosen to fuel the fury on the Great Lakes. He labeled Walker's legislation "an assault on unions," while the White House political operation bused in more demonstrators to join those waving Walker = Hitler placards. These are the words and deeds of a partisan politician, not a national leader.

If the brave Gabrielle Giffords could speak normally, what would she say about these events? I hope she would agree with me: This is a sad moment for liberalism, for the Democratic Party, and, really, for the whole country.

Keep in mind, Charles Lane isn't some Fox News personality. I've seen him publish a variety of worthwhile commentaries in recent years.

But reading this, I can't imagine what he was thinking.

Lane seems to believe unions trying to protect their collective bargaining rights -- unnecessarily targeted by a conservative governor on some kind of crusade -- are in the wrong. Lane doesn't explain why, exactly, and on the substance, I obviously think he's mistaken.

But it's Lane's thoughts on "civility" that are just inexplicable.

Continue reading...

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

IF ONLY IT WERE THIS EASY.... There are competing ideas on how to combat the climate crisis. It never occurred to me to just wish it away through legislation.

A Montana legislator is proposing the state embrace global warming as good for the economy.

Republican Rep. Joe Read of Ronan aims to pass a law that says global warming is a natural occurrence that "is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana."

Reaction by scientists and environmentalists to House Bill 549 has been harsh. University of Montana climate change professor Steve Running calls it an indefensible attempt to repeal the laws of physics.

Why didn't we think of that? Climate change threatens us in a variety of dangerous ways, but instead of addressing the problem, we can have ignorant politicians simply declare that global warming is good for us.

Matt Yglesias added, "This seems like fruitful territory. Imagine what could be achieved by simply passing laws that say tax cuts raise revenue and defense spending doesn't count as spending."

Why stop there? I'll look forward to Republicans declaring cancer illegal and writing legislation making cookies an effective weight-loss tool.

As I've heard Neil deGrasse Tyson explain more than once, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

They're called the "laws of physics," but that doesn't mean lawmakers get to change them.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share
 




 

 

Watch Colbert Report with Jeffrey Leonard

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

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly


Place Your Link Here

--- Links ---

Addiction Treatment Centers

Alcohol Treatment Center

Bad Credit Loan

Long Distance Moving Companies

FREE Phone Card

Flowers

Personal Loan

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs