Joe Half-Rack

Will the GOP Base Stay At Home in November? (With Update)

2012-02-01T09:00:00.000-08:00

What are the three most important things for the Republicans in 2012? That's easy: turnout, turnout, and turnout -- and they're coming up short on all three:

Underneath tonight’s big win for Mitt Romney in the Florida Republican primary, is a statistic that might suggest enthusiasm is flagging among GOP voters in this large and crucial swing state: turnout was actually down significantly from 2008.

In the 2008 Republican primary in Florida, in which John McCain beat Romney by a margin of 36%-31%, a total of nearly 1.95 million votes were cast.

But in tonight’s primary, turnout was actually much lower. At time of writing, with 98% of precincts reporting, the total turnout is only about 1.65 million — a drop-off of 15% in terms of the raw number of voters. * * *

I think it is interesting that South Carolina, which gave Newt a big win, actually had pretty good turnout (i.e., the GOP base showed up at the polls) whereas Florida, a state Mitt won handily, had a low turnout, as did New Hampshire and Iowa.

Republicans just aren't all that excited about Romney, and the numbers are reflecting this lack of enthusiasm. But I think there is something else going on here, namely, I don't believe there is enough hatred for Obama right now. Sure, members of Radical Right hate him (or should I say, hate the Fantasy Version of him), but that's about it.

And that's a problem for Republicans. They don't hate Obama enough. They need to work on that if they want their people to show up at the polls in November, because Romney sure isn't going to bring them in.

UPDATE: Even the Idiot Limbaugh understands this. Here's what he said this morning about Romney's "I'm not concerned about the very poor” comment:

“Everybody knows what he's trying to say but he didn't say it and he makes himself a target with this stuff. He comes across as the prototypical rich Republican. And it's gonna make it harder and harder and harder and harder to go after Obama because this turns around on him. You know, all these Wizards of Smart in the Republican establishment say, ‘We can't have Newt out there! Why, Newt's gonna be the topic. We need Obama to be the topic. We need Obama to be the guy campaign's about. If Newt's out there, it's only gonna be about Newt.’ Well, what evidence is there that it's not gonna be about Romney with these kinds of statements?”

Best Attack Line of the Campaign So Far

2012-01-31T09:03:00.000-08:00

"Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare."

- Newt Gingrich (yes, he actually said that).

I am loving this. About a year ago, I told a friend that I was really going to enjoy the GOP presidential primaries; but to be honest, I had no idea they'd be this good. I really like how Santorum and Newt are attacking Romney for being a moderate. I never thought I'd see the day when politically moderate people would be attacked for their lack of extremism, but there it is.

Fantasy Obama

2012-01-28T12:15:00.000-08:00

Inspired by recent Republican debates, I was going to write a post on this exact topic. But Bill Maher said it better than I ever could, so check it out.

My favorite part:

Republicans have created this completely fictional president. His name is "Barack X," and he's an Islamo-Socialist Revolutionary who's coming for your guns, raising your taxes, slashing the military, apologizing to other countries, and taking his cues from Europe, or worst yet, Saul Alinski.

And this is how politics has changed. You used to have to run against an actual candidate. But now, you just re-create him inside The Bubble and run against your new fictional candidate. That's how Bush won in 2004 -- by running against John Kerry, a French war criminal.

And speaking of Bush, I know conservatives are saying, "Oh Bill, come on -- Democrats did the same thing to him." No. Say what you will about the Left's hatred of Bush. At least we were hating on the real guy. We didn't invent a bogeyman who tanked the economy, took us to war on false pretenses, and tortured prisoners -- that was the actual guy.

But run down the list of complaints about Fantasy Obama: He wants to raise your taxes (even though he's lowered them), confiscate your guns (even though he's never mentioned it), and read terrorists their rights -- yeah, like he did Tuesday in Somalia.

This "Fantasy Obama" to which Maher refers is apparently a big hit with the Barack-hating radical right-wing extremists who attend the GOP debates and who wouldn't vote for Obama if you held a gun to their heads. But do Republicans really think that General Election voters, especially Independents, will buy into this?

So Much For Romney's Florida Firewall (With Update)

2012-01-23T08:09:00.000-08:00

From The Weekly Standard:

A new poll from Florida conduced by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research finds 34.4 percent of Republican voters going for Newt Gingrich and 25.6 percent for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul has support from 13.1 percent, while Rick Santorum gets 10.7 percent.

The poll is "Among Registered Voters Who Will be Voting in Florida's Republican Presidential Primary," and was conducted the day after Gingrich handily won the South Carolina contest.

The next few weeks are going to be very interesting. Newt's got the momentum, but Romney's got the money and it remains his race to win.

My only concern now is Newt's big mouth, which gets him in trouble every time. But if Newt can avoid saying something stupid just for a few weeks (a tall order, I know), then I think we'll have a real race here.

UPDATE: The latest Rasmussen poll gives Gingrich a nine-point lead in Florida (Gingrich 41% and Romney 32%). Expect to see Romney really go on the attack against Gingrich in tonight's debate.

Bonus Quote of the Week

2012-01-20T10:06:00.000-08:00

“First Mitt won Iowa, then he lost Iowa? It’s a classic Romney flip-flop.”

- Stephen Colbert

Quote of the Week

2012-01-17T10:33:00.000-08:00

"I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.”

- Mitt Romney.

The New York Times, however, reports that "in the most recent year, Mr. Romney made $374,327.62 in speaker’s fees, at an average of $41,592 per speech, according to his public financial disclosure reports."

The average working family might find it interesting that Romney considers $374,327.62 to be "not very much" money. I'll bet you $10,000 that this statement will come back to haunt him.

Gingrich Is Atop The Polls in Virginia

2011-12-24T12:23:00.000-08:00

From Quinnipiac:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich jumps into a slight 30 - 25 percent lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among Virginia Republicans in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. No other candidate tops 9 percent.

Great news for Newt, right? Well, not really:

In a major blow to their presidential campaigns, both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich will not be on the ballot for Virginia’s March 6 primary.

Both candidates failed to meet the state’s requirement of 10,000 signatures, according to the state party, and thus do not qualify.

“After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary,” the state GOP said via Twitter on Saturday. Perry’s rejection was announced late Friday.

Perry not making the ballot is no big surprise, given that he is an idiot. Gingrich, however, is supposedly the intellectual leader of the GOP. But given that recent history indicates the the Republican Party is made up almost entirely of morons, maybe this is Gingrich's ploy to appear more like a dumb-shit to the GOP base.

UPDATE: The stupidity continues:

After not making the ballot in Virginia, Newt Gingrich's spokesman said he would "work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice."

But there's a problem, CNN notes: "Virginia state law specifically prohibits voters from writing in candidates not on the ballot in primary elections."

Merry Christmas, Newt.

Clever

2011-12-13T16:47:00.000-08:00

Bad Lip Reading: Rick Perry's "Strong" ad - watch more funny videos

Quote of the Year

2011-12-13T12:15:00.000-08:00

"The higher a monkey climbs up a pole the more you see of his butt. The Speaker is very high up the pole right now and we'll have to see if people enjoy the view."

- Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, on Newt Gingrich.

Quote of the Week

2011-12-08T10:51:00.000-08:00

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top Al-Qaeda leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement… or whoever’s left out there.”

Barack Obama, responding to insinuations from some GOP presidential candidates that he is an appeaser.

More please.

One thing that has pissed me off about Obama is his reluctance to tout his many foreign policy achievements. If George W. Bush had this many successes under his belt less than three years into his presidency, we would have seen him prancing around in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier screaming "mission accomplished" over and over again as he repeatedly pissed himself.

Maybe Obama thinks his successes speak for themselves, but if the GOP is stupid enough to go after him on foreign policy, I expect to see more of this from him.

By the way, isn't it great to have a president who isn't a pussy when it comes to foreign policy, particularly when it comes to dealing with Pakistan? Bush and Cheney's weakness in this area basically rose to the level of treason.

Quote of the Week

2011-12-02T12:35:00.000-08:00

"Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods, have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal."

Class Warrior Newt Gingrich, defending his previously-stated position that child labor laws should be repealed (no wonder the Democrats are praying that this guy gets the GOP nomination).

And in a completely related story, GOP pollster Frank Luntz gives this advice to his fellow Republicans:

Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’

“If you talk about raising taxes on the rich,” the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But “if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes.”

Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’

“[Democrats] cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, I’m not sure about that. But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have the advantage.”

Luntz is also counseling Republicans not to use the word "capitalism." It sounds like the Occupy Wall Street movement might actually be having an effect.

Sam Brownback Hates America (With Updates)

2011-11-27T11:09:00.000-08:00

Not only should Ms. Sullivan refuse to apologize, she should attack Brownback for being a spineless wimp as well as an enemy of free speech (and the high school principal should be ashamed of himself). Via the AP:

A Kansas teenager who got into hot water last week over a disparaging tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback said she has received so much support from around the country that now she’s leaning toward rejecting her high school principal’s demand that she apologize to the governor in writing.

Since word of her tweet and the reaction by Brownback’s office and her school was reported in the media, people from across the U.S. have reached out to Emma Sullivan — mostly to encourage her to stand her ground, The Wichita Eagle reported.

“I knew it would cause some uproar, but I definitely didn’t think it would get to a national level or that I would have so many people tweeting at me,” she told the newspaper Friday.

The Shawnee Mission East senior was taking part in a Kansas Youth in Government program in Topeka when she sent out a tweet from the back of a crowd of students listening to Brownback’s greeting: “Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot.”

She actually made no such comment and described the tweet as “joking around.”

Brownback’s office, which monitors social media for postings containing the governor’s name, saw Sullivan’s post and contacted the Youth in Government program. Soon she was in the principal’s office for an hourlong scolding and a demand she send Brownback an apology letter.

The principal, who later called the situation a “disciplinary issue” that was not a public matter, even suggested talking points for the letter she was supposed to write.

Many have urged the 18-year-old to not write the letter, suggesting instead that Brownback or his representatives need to apologize to Sullivan for reporting her to school officials.

“I’m really glad most people have been supportive of me, regardless of their political views,” she said. “They’re standing up for the fact that it’s my … right to express myself.”

UPDATE: Good for her:

An American teenager who wrote a disparaging tweet about Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback said Sunday that she is rejecting her high school principal's demand for a written apology. Emma Sullivan, 18, said she isn't sorry and doesn't think such a letter would be sincere. ***

The turd is now right where it should be -- in the pockets of Brownback and the school principal. Your move, assholes.

UPDATE II: Looks like somebody gave Brownback some good advice:

Gov. Sam Brownback apologized Monday for his office's reaction to a Kansas high school senior's disparaging tweet about the Republican during a visit to the Statehouse. ***

"My staff over-reacted to this tweet and for that I apologize," Brownback said. "Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms."

No Surprise Here

2011-11-22T13:34:00.000-08:00

Fox News makes people dumb:

According to the latest results from Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind poll, some news sources make us less likely to know what's going on in the world. In the most recent study, the poll asked New Jerseyans about current events at home and abroad, and from what sources -- if any -- they get their information. The conclusion: Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don't watch any news at all.

My experience is that Fox News viewers -- like the asshole who occasionally responds to this blog -- actually think that being informed on the issues is anti-American. In fact, these people seem to celebrate their idiocy on a regular basis.

What did Herman Cain say the other day? He said that the American people "need a leader, not a reader." I bet you Fox News viewers loved that one.

Why Do So Many NASCAR Fans Hate Our Troops?

2011-11-21T16:54:00.000-08:00

This is disgusting:

video platform video management video solutions video player

What Perry's Brain Freeze Really Tells Us About The GOP Mentality

2011-11-14T13:16:00.000-08:00

OK, I admit that I've watched Rick Perry's screw-up in the debate over and over again. It was hard to watch the first time, but it got more hilarious with repeated viewings.

I recently told a friend that the reason Perry forgot the Department of Energy when he said he'd get rid of three agencies of government -- but could not remember the third one -- was because every GOP presidential candidate is competing with each other to demonstrate who hates government the most; and in Perry's zeal to out-hate the rest of the field, he jumped right in without really thinking about what he was going to say. It is this thoughtless approach to the issue of governing, I argued, that pretty much defines the GOP these days.

E.J. Dionne takes this basic idea and runs with it:

* * * Would Perry end all federal aid to education? Would he do away with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the part of the Commerce Department that, among other things, tracks hurricanes? Energy was the department he forgot. Would he scrap the department’s 17 national labs, including such world-class facilities as Los Alamos, N.M., Oak Ridge, Tenn., or — there’s that primary coming up — Aiken, S.C.?

I’m not accusing Perry of wanting to do any of these things because I don’t believe he has given them a moment of thought. And that’s the problem for conservatives. Their movement has been overtaken by a quite literally mindless opposition to government. Perry, correctly, thought he had a winning sound bite, had he managed to blurt it out, because if you just say you want to scrap government departments (and three is a nice, round number), many conservatives will cheer without asking questions.

This is a long way from the conservatism I used to respect. Although I often disagreed with conservatives, I admired their prudence, their affection for tradition and their understanding that the intricate bonds of community are established with great difficulty over time and not easy to reweave once they are torn asunder. At their best, conservatives forced us to think harder. Now, many in the ranks seem to have decided that hard and nuanced thinking is a telltale sign of liberalism. * * *

Fucking-A.

Bonus Quotes of the Week

2011-11-02T10:29:00.000-07:00

"I do view China as a potential military threat to the United States....They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat."

- Herman Cain (note to Cain: China has been "nuclear capable" for about a half a century -- it currently has around 3000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal).

It troubles me that Cain is imploding so badly as of late because I really would like to see him give Romney a run for his money. But I love how radical right wingers like Limbaugh and Coulter are trying to blame Democratic operatives for leaking the Cain sexual harassment story, which makes no sense politically given that every Democrat knows that Cain has no chance of getting the nomination (i.e., every Democratic operative out there would do everything in his or her power to keep Cain viable for as long as possible because it hurts Romney, who will almost certainly be the GOP nominee).

Either this leak came from a rival GOP campaign (somewhat likely) or from someone who worked for or was once a business associate of Cain and has a grudge against him (highly likely).

And here is another quote from this week that I liked. It's from retired Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY), and he made these remarks yesterday while testifying in front of the so-called Super Committee:

“Just a quick note about Grover Norquist. If Grover Norquist is now the most powerful man in America, he should run for president. There’s no question about his power. And let me tell you, he has people in thrall. That’s a terrible phrase. Lincoln used it. It means your mind has been captured. You’re in bondage with a soul.

“So here he is. I asked him. He said, ‘My hero is Ronald Reagan.’ I said, ‘Well, he raised taxes 11 times in his eight years.’ And he said, ‘I know. I didn’t like that at all.’ I said, ‘Well, he did it. Why do you suppose?’ He said, ‘I don’t know. Very disappointing.’ I said, ‘He probably did it to make the country run, another sick idea.’”

Grover Norquist is, of course, the anti-tax crusader who has secured pledges from a majority of Republican members of Congress -- including all six GOP Super Committee members -- to never vote to raise taxes under any circumstances, even during times of war (which goes a long way to explaining why we have such a huge deficit right now). I've long felt that signing such a pledge displayed a deep hatred for America, and I'm glad to see that the GOP is starting to pay a political price for such lunacy.

Quote of the Week

2011-11-01T17:51:00.000-07:00

"Our blacks are so much better than their blacks. To become a black Republican, you don't just roll into it. You're not going with the flow...and that's why we have very impressive blacks in the Republican party."

Ann Coulter.

Why So Many Foreign Policy Victories For Obama?

2011-10-21T12:59:00.000-07:00

Former DNC Communications Director Karen Finney said it best: "Look at the foreign policy successes -- that is what President Obama can get done when the GOP cannot obstruct him."

This should be the central theme of Obama's reelection campaign.

"What The Fuck Is Wrong With You People?"

2011-10-21T10:54:00.000-07:00

"Is there no Republican that can be gracious and statesmanlike in this situation? We removed a dictator in six months, losing no American soldiers, spending like a billion dollars rather than a trillion dollars, and engendering what appears to be goodwill to people who now have a prideful story of their own independence to tell -- not to mention oil (they have oil!). * * *

"What the fuck is wrong with you people? Honestly, what is wrong with you? Are you that small?"

-- Jon Stewart.

The Fox segment -- starting at 8:40 -- is particularly funny. Those poor FoxNews bastards are livid that Obama actually pulled off this thing in Libya! I think it is hilarious that there are people in this country who are furious today because Obama keeps handing America one foreign policy success after another (and it probably doesn't help that their guys -- Bush and Cheney -- were so utterly incompetent in this area).

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Bonus Quote of the Week

2011-10-20T16:04:00.000-07:00

Remember hearing about the “blame America first” crowd? Well, say hello to the “thank America last” crowd.

Steve Benen, noting that in their rush to not give the hated Obama credit for his success in Libya, Republicans couldn't even bring themselves to thank the U.S. servicemen and women for the part they played in taking Qadaffi out.

I know these characters hate America and all, but their hatred for this country usually isn't so prominently on display (except, of course, when they intentionally try to bring down our economy, like they did last summer).

Quote of the Week (With Updates)

2011-10-20T09:58:00.000-07:00

From Andrew Sullivan:

"To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now."

Fucking-A.

UPDATE: Marco Rubio is a steaming pile of excrement as well as a hater of American servicemen, apparently -- and it turns out he's also a goddam foreigner (yes, the Birthers are back!).

BTW, how do you know that Republicans hate Obama with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns? Because -- as the above Rubio link indicates -- they'd rather give the fucking French credit for the victory in Libya than give any credit to Obama (or to our men and women in uniform), and Republicans hate the French.

Of course, this isn't surprising -- they spent the last several months criticizing the Obama Administration's Libya policy, so what the hell else can they do, admit they were wrong?

UPDATE II: Well, at least two Republicans still have some honor:

“It’s a great day,” Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on CNN on Thursday morning. “I think the administration deserves great credit. Obviously, I had different ideas on the tactical side, but the world is a better place.”

Senator Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, added, in a statement, referring to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, “The administration, especially Secretary Clinton, deserve our congratulations.”

UPDATE III: Kevin Drum nails it:

I understand the left's problem with Obama's national security policy. But the right? What the hell is their problem? Obama has escalated our presence dramatically in Afghanistan; he created a massive drone air force that's all but wiped out al-Qaeda in Pakistan; he killed Osama bin Laden; he approved a multilateral military operation in Libya that ended up killing Muammar Qaddafi; he sent a SEAL team out to kill Somali pirates; he assassinates U.S. citizens in foreign countries who are associated with al-Qaeda; and he's done more to isolate and sanction Iran than George Bush ever did. Crikey. Just how bloodthirsty do they want the guy to be?

Of course, it's also true that Obama has suggested that Israel should halt new construction in West Bank settlements, and he hasn't yet turned Iran into a glassy plain. I suppose the former is enough to make him the second coming of Neville Chamberlain all by itself, and the latter is something to keep pushing for. Hope springs eternal.

But seriously guys. How much more militaristic do you realistically think an American president can be, especially after the military fiascoes of the past decade that you so enthusiastically backed? Get a grip.

The Vote Was A Setback For Obama?

2011-10-12T09:11:00.000-07:00

McClatchy is usually pretty good at political analysis, but its take on the GOP filibuster of Obama's Jobs Bill misses the mark:

Senators voted 50-49 on a procedural move to take up Obama’s plan, but 60 votes were required under Senate rules for lawmakers to proceed on the measure. * * *

The vote was a setback for Obama, who has been crisscrossing the country trumpeting the bill and predicting that its defeat would be the fault of obstructionist Republicans. * * *

WTF? I thought everybody knew that there was absolutely no chance of the bill passing in the Senate because that particular body now requires 60 votes to get anything done, and the GOP is filibustering everything these days. Christ, if Obama proposed a bill that both banned abortion and outlawed the ACLU, and the GOP thought that such a bill might help Obama politically, every Republican would still vote against it.

That's the whole point of last night's exercise. Get these America-hating GOP motherfuckers on the record, then attack them for not only opposing job creation, but also opposing higher taxes on the rich, something that a vast majority of Americans -- and a clear majority of Republicans -- actually support.

What I found particularly troubling about the McClatchy piece was that the word "filibuster" is found nowhere in it, even though that is exactly what happened last night. Pull your heads out of your asses, McClatchy-folk -- you're usually much better than this.

UPDATE: The Cincinnati Enquirer appears to get it:

I Agree With Romney On This

2011-09-29T09:55:00.000-07:00

From TPM:

Here’s how Mitt Romney is deflecting the flip-flopper charge this time around:

“In the private sector, if you don’t change your view when the facts change, you’ll get fired for being stupid,” Romney told a town hall in New Hampshire, according to ABC News. * * *

I actually think this is going to work. Everyone is worried about Romney's record of flip-flopping, but I predict that it won't play much of a part in the general election. As Clinton famously said during the run-up to the 1992 election, "It's the economy, stupid." Bottom line: If the economy improves over the next few months, Obama will win. If it doesn't improve, then we'll have a real fight on our hands.

Quote of the Week (With Update)

2011-08-31T13:44:00.000-07:00

In perhaps the most gratuitously — and joyously! — dickish move of his presidency, Barack Obama has scheduled a primetime congressional address next week at the precise moment Politico and MSNBC will be hosting a debate for the GOP presidential candidates.

-- From Gawker.

UPDATE: Obama backs down. Wow -- I didn't see that coming.

No, This Is Not An Onion Article

2011-08-26T11:05:00.000-07:00

It's from the New York Times, and yes, Virginia, there actually is a tax cut that the GOP opposes:

It is hard to find a tax cut that Congressional Republicans dislike. Unless it is a tax cut pushed by President Obama.

In a turning of the tax policy tables, Democrats are increasingly hammering on Republicans who oppose the president’s proposal to extend for a year a payroll tax cut passed last year with bipartisan support.

That tax cut — which reduces workers’ contributions to Social Security this year to 4.2 percent of wages, from 6.2 percent — expires in December. The White House would like to extend it for another year. But Republicans in Congress are balking, arguing that such a cut adds needlessly to the nation’s budget deficit, and should be replaced with an overhaul of tax policy instead.***

OK, look -- I get it: We have an election that is a little over 14 months away, so I understand that the GOP doesn't want to support anything Obama proposes. Given the current political climate, Obama could even propose a constitutional amendment banning abortion and the GOP would probably oppose it because Obama supports it.

But opposing a tax cut simply because it helps the middle class and poor people, while at the same time insisting that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy be continued? That's pretty fucked-up.

Huntsman's Path To Name Recognition?

2011-08-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

Via TPM:

The former Utah governor and Obama-appointed ambassador to China has appeared to take glee in poking the Republican base in recent days. Try to convince the base that his appointment by President Obama isn't a fatal handicap? Nah, just mock the base instead.

Huntsman's "Call me crazy" tweet was in response to two prominent blow-ups from Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Within the space of 28 hours he alleged that scientists were making up global warming for profit and had dismissed evolution as "a theory that's out there."

"To be clear," Huntsman tweeted. "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Crazy? Maybe not, especially if Huntsman -- who really has nothing to lose -- decides to attack his fellow GOP presidential candidates for taking the batshit-crazy positions that folks like Bachmann and Perry seem to take on pretty much a daily basis.

I would love it if, during the next GOP debate when Bachmann says something absurd (which will happen), Huntsman turns to her and says, "That may be the most insane thing I've heard yet during this campaign, and that's saying a lot."

I guarantee that if Huntsman says something along those lines, everybody in the country will finally know who he is.

Quote Of The Week

2011-08-15T11:02:00.000-07:00

"I think you want a president who is passionate about America -- that's in love with America."

-- Rick "Love It and Leave It" Perry, Texas Governor and GOP Presidential candidate.

I only have one piece of advice for Gov. Perry: If you want to win the presidency, you really need to change the way you speak. You sound so much like George W. Bush that you'll probably creep out even hardcore Republicans:

A Video That Perfectly Demonstrates Why The GOP Is Screwed Right Now

2011-08-14T09:47:00.000-07:00

First, a little context: 21 out of 23 polls now show over sixty percent approval for raising taxes as part of a deficit reduction plan -- the two exceptions are the FoxNews poll (56% approval for raising taxes) and Reuters (59% approval). Now, watch this video from the recent GOP debate in Iowa:

Talk about being out of touch. The Republican Party is so afraid of the Tea-Baggers that every single GOP presidential candidate raised their hand saying they would refuse to support a debt deal that had a 10-to-1 ratio of spending cuts vs. tax increases. UnFuckingBelievable.

The problem with a Republican presidential candidate pandering to the batshit-crazy wing of his or her party is that whomever gets the nomination is going to have shift back to the middle during the run-up to the General Election. Now that Pawlenty has dropped out of the race, there remains only two GOP candidates who can effectively pull off such a shift: Huntsman (who has no chance at the nomination even though he is probably the least crazy of the bunch) and Romney. Perry can't do that because he's just as much of a Tea-Bagger as Bachmann.

This is why Romney will get the nomination. I know he's raised flip-flopping to an art form, but his willingness to change his position on pretty much every issue will probably help him in the long haul, particularly when it comes to the debate over how to deal with the national debt.

Holy Shit!

2011-08-09T17:50:00.000-07:00

Given how weak Obama's been looking as of late -- particularly during the Republican-manufactured Debt Ceiling "Crisis," where he pretty much gave the GOP and its Tea-Bagging Masters everything they wanted -- I figured he was going to get his ass kicked in the post-debt ceiling polls. After all, John Boehner openly bragged that he got 98% of what he wanted in the Debt Ceiling Deal. So imagine my surprise when I read the result of the most recent Gallup poll:

According to the monthly survey, which was conducted from August 4 -7, Obama would win 45-39 against "the Republican party's candidate." The previous two polls from Gallup had the generic GOPer running strong with a 47-39 lead in July and 44-39 lead in June.

This flip in the polling made no sense to me, particularly given all the spin being put out by the GOP presidential candidates that the Debt Ceiling Debacle was all Obama's fault (and Obama's apparent unwillingness to aggressively counter-attack on this issue). Then I read the results from this CNN poll:

Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked. The poll indicates that views of the Democratic party, by contrast, have remained fairly steady, with 47 percent saying they have a favorable view of the Democrats and an equal amount saying they hold an unfavorable view.

"The Democratic party, which had a favorable rating just a couple of points higher than the GOP in July, now has a 14-point advantage over the Republican party," adds Holland.

The same pattern holds for the parties' leaders in Congress. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the chamber, have never had great numbers, but the public's view of them have remained essentially unchanged in the wake of the debt ceiling debate. But House Speaker John Boehner's favorable rating has dropped 10 points, and his unfavorable rating is up to 40 percent, a new high for him. On the Senate side, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell isn't faring much better - his unfavorable rating is 39 percent, a seven-point increase since July.

The same CNN poll also indicated that views of the Tea Baggers "have also turned more negative, with 51 percent saying they have a negative view of the two-year-old limited government and anti-tax grassroots movement, with favorable ratings dropping from 37 percent down to 31 percent."

All these poll results tell me that the American People were actually paying attention to the Debt Ceiling Debate and were able to see through all the GOP/Tea-Bagger bullshittery. It also tells me that the GOP learned a tough lesson from this, namely, don't try to re-write history when (1) the history just happened within the last few weeks, and (2) lots of people where actually watching the history unfold.

But in any event, Obama and the Democrats really need to exploit this while the Debt Deal Fiasco is still clear in peoples' minds. They need to aggressively attack the Republicans for once again bringing this country's economy to the brink. When a political party fucks up as bad as the GOP did on this issue, it is important to strike while the iron is hot and do so before FoxNews and the Republicans can re-write the history of what just happened.

Best Cartoon Yet On America's Current Political Problems

2011-08-08T13:50:00.000-07:00

Fucking-A

2011-08-07T13:38:00.000-07:00

By the way, I know this might sound hard to believe, but it looks like the Democrats have finally come up with an effective talking point.

I never thought I'd see the day when the usually-lame Democrats actually succeed at framing an issue. The End Times must truly be upon us.

Hilarious

2011-07-28T11:40:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Reagan Was Clearly An America-Hating Libral

2011-07-22T00:55:00.000-07:00

“The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the cost, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.”

– RONALD REAGAN, 1983.

Ronald Reagan also said, back in 1987: “The United States has a special obligation to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

All the folks who are willing to take this country to the brink and think it’ll be OK for the U.S. to default on its debt have one thing in common – all of them love Ronald Reagan and think of him as nothing short of a conservative god. Yet the debt ceiling was raised SEVENTEEN TIMES during his presidency. Plus Reagan raised taxes several times while president.

I think it is hilarious that if Ronald Reagan showed up on the political scene today, the Tea-Baggers would instantly brand him as a socialist-commie Amerika-hating fascist/marxist evil-doer and then proceed to beat the crap out of him in an alley somewhere. Reagan was more liberal than even most Democrats are these days.

This Has To Be One Of The Seven Signs Of The Apocalypse

2011-07-21T09:30:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post:

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer, and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

In other words, according to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said. * * *

Stunning.

By the way, you know things are screwed up when a piece in The Onion sounds more like real reporting than it does satire:

Members of the U.S. Congress reported Wednesday they were continuing to carefully debate the issue of whether or not they should allow the country to descend into a roiling economic meltdown of historically dire proportions.

"It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), adding that arguments could be made for both sides, and that the debate over ensuring America’s financial solvency versus allowing the nation to default on its debt—which would torpedo stock markets, cause mortgage and interests rates to skyrocket, and decimate the value of the U.S. dollar—is “certainly a conversation worth having.” "Obviously, we don't want to rush to consensus on whether it is or isn't a good idea to save the American economy and all our respective livelihoods from certain peril until we've examined this thorny dilemma from every angle. And if we’re still discussing this matter on Aug. 2, well, then, so be it.” At press time, President Obama said he personally believed the country should not be economically ruined.

Asshole of the Week

2011-07-18T13:05:00.000-07:00

"The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked."

-- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

There's one thing you haven't tried, Mitch, and that is acting less like a dick. Only 21% of the country approves of how you and the rest of the GOP are handling this debt ceiling/budget negotiations process -- 71% disapprove. I guess you can expect numbers like that when most Republicans appear to have lost their fucking minds.

From Mike Keefe of The Denver Post (W/ Update)

2011-07-17T12:01:00.001-07:00

UPDATE: Only 21% of Americans back the GOP resistance to raising taxes. 71% disapprove of how Republicans are handling the Debt Ceiling/Budget negotiations.

Quote of the Week

2011-07-08T10:00:00.001-07:00

"The Republicans who control the House and have a lot of votes in the Senate have now decided -- having quadrupled the debt in the 12 years before I took office and doubled it after I left -- that it's all the sudden the biggest problem in the world."

-- Bill Clinton

Finally . . .

2011-06-30T08:03:00.001-07:00

. . . a Republican who actually remembers that the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea:

[Sixth Circuit Judge] Sutton concluded that the heart of the assault on the Affordable Care Act — the claim that a law encouraging people to buy insurance is unconstitutional because Congress cannot compel people to take this unwanted action — has no basis in the “text of the Constitution,” and it rests on a legal distinction that is utterly incoherent. And this comes from one of the most conservative members of the federal bench.

Judge Sutton, by the way, "is a George W. Bush appointee and a former law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. He served as an officer in the conservative Federalist Society’s Federalism and Separation of Powers practice group, and was one of the nation’s leading crusaders for expanding the role of the states at the federal government’s expense."

Best Presentation Yet On Why This Country Is Fucked Politically

2011-06-28T09:31:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Time Has Come To Do Nothing (With Update)

2011-06-27T08:26:00.000-07:00

As I was watching coverage of the budget talks the other day, I realized that there is simply no way the Republicans and Democrats are ever going to come to an agreement on anything related to the budget. The problem is that too many Republican congressmen signed the Grover Norquist Pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstances, and any congressmen who violates this pledge and votes to raise taxes would have a very hard time winning a GOP primary let alone a general election.

Although I think signing such a pledge was tantamount to treason and demonstrated a genuine hatred for America, the whole thing made me wonder what would happen if Congress and Obama simply did nothing. After all, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2012.

Well, the Congressional Budget Office crunched the numbers -- not only for a scenario where the Bush tax cuts are extended (which, of course, would lead to economic disaster) -- but also figured out what would happen if Congress and Obama did nothing:

[T]he [CBO] forecast also presents another opportunity to remind people that the medium-term budget outlook is perfectly fine if Congress adheres to the law as it's currently written. That means no repealing the health care law, for one, but more significantly it means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and (unfathomably) allowing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors to fall to the levels prescribed by the formula Congress wrote almost 15 years ago. In other words, no more "doc fixes."

Helpfully, CBO juxtaposed these two alternative futures in a pair of graphs and, just as last time, it projects that deficits will disappear entirely by the end of President Obama's second term (if he gets a second term) if Congress were to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

Sounds good to me. The lack of "doc fixes" will, of course, be a big problem, but there is no way the Democrats or Republicans are ever going to come to a budget agreement anyway, so there it is.

UPDATE: Here is more on this from Steve Benen:

*** The tax deal worked out in December, much to the left’s chagrin, extended all of the Bush-era rates. Obama has said he won’t allow this again — come hell or high water, the president won’t let the wealthy keep the tax breaks they don’t need and the country can’t afford.

This matters a great deal, of course, in the context of the current talks. Dems want more revenue, Republicans won’t even consider tax increases. But the president can generate all kinds of revenue later, and there’s nothing the GOP can do about it.

The White House will probably offer Congress a familiar deal: current rates up to $250,000, Clinton-era top rates for those over $250,000. If Republicans agree, taxes on the wealthy go up and the deficit shrinks. If Republicans refuse, demand Bush-era rates for everyone, and reject a deal that shelters the middle class, taxes go up across the board and the deficit shrinks a lot.

It’s something to keep in mind as the debt talks continue.

Interesting Article

2011-05-20T16:37:00.000-07:00

A reader referred this Washington Post article to me:

This week, the War Powers Act confronts its moment of truth. Friday will mark the 60th day since President Obama told Congress of his Libyan campaign. According to the act, that declaration started a 60-day clock: If Obama fails to obtain congressional support for his decision within this time limit, he has only one option — end American involvement within the following 30 days.

Obama has not only failed but he hasn’t even tried — leaving it to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, to call for a “specific resolution that would give [the president] authority.” Neither the president nor the Democratic congressional leadership has shown any interest. They have been sleep-walking their way to Day 60. * * *

Why Is Ronald Reagan Such A God To The Radical Right?

2011-05-20T10:22:00.000-07:00

Whenever I get into a discussion with a conservative about tax policy, I mention two things: (1) Bill Clinton's 1993 budget -- which featured the biggest tax increase in modern U.S. history -- ushered in our country's greatest period of sustained economic expansion, and (2) Ronald Reagan signed into law the second biggest tax increase in modern U.S. History.

Let me repeat that last point: Ronald Freaking Reagan signed into law the second biggest tax increase in modern U.S. history:

It's conservative lore that Reagan the Icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the Renegade raised them. As [former Reagan Budget Director David] Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

What I find hilarious is that 99.99% of Republicans have no idea that Reagan raised taxes. The GOP clearly wants to keep this a secret, because if Republicans suddenly found out that Reagan was a chronic tax raiser, there would be mass suicides within the party, or, at the very least, an epidemic of spontaneous human combustion which would obliterate the GOP base.

Whatever You Say, Newt

2011-05-18T09:31:00.000-07:00

Unbelievable:

Newt Gingrich's walk back tour reached its zenith Tuesday night, as Gingrich personally apologized to Paul Ryan for dismissing his Medicare plan as "right wing social engineering." In an added twist, Gingrich claims that the merest mention of his extensive condemnation of Ryan's budget from Sunday's Meet The Press by Democrats is now out of bounds as a result.

"Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate," he told FOX's Greta Van Susteren. ""When I make a mistake, and I'm going to on occasion, I'm going to share with the American people that was a mistake because that way we can have an honest conversation."

Democrats have been giddy -- and Republicans terrified -- at the prospect of new ads and messaging featuring Gingrich's attacks on the Ryan budget as "radical change from the right" and "too big a jump" for America. Newt's comments to FOX suggest that he's well aware of what's coming.

The "Ryan Plan" is causing big problems for the GOP. Just last week, 42 House Republicans signed a letter to Obama asking him to tell the Democrats to stop their attacks on GOP members who voted for the Ryan budget, which included a plan to privatize Medicare and cap spending on it. Newt probably thought he had political cover to say what he said on Meet The Press last Sunday given how fast House Republicans were running away from the Ryan Plan. He must not have gotten the memo stating that the GOP now intends to fully support Ryan and his goal to eliminate Medicare. I guess that letter to Obama didn't work.

What I find most amazing is that it was Newt Gingrich himself -- over two decades ago -- who told his fellow Republicans that they must be more nasty when it comes to dealing with Democrats. This is from a 1990 New York Times opinion piece:

"Sick." "Traitors." "Bizarre." "Self-serving." "Shallow." "Corrupt." "Pathetic." "Shame." The group that urged political candidates to use these epithets has since regretted suggesting the word ''traitors,'' in response to inquiries from the press. But the others were allowed to stand; they appear in a glossary that a conservative Republican group recently mailed to Republican state legislative candidates.

The group is Gopac, the G.O.P. Political Action Committee. Its general chairman is Representative Newt Gingrich. With the pamphlet, ''Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,'' comes a letter from Mr. Gingrich himself. Its message to candidates: Step up invective. Use words like these to describe opponents. These words work.

Mr. Gingrich's injunction represents the worst of American political discourse, which reached a low during the dispiriting Presidential campaign of 1988. Then, more than ever before, negative argument displaced reasoned discussion about how a nation might best be governed. ***

In other words, the guy who pretty much invented the modern-day negative campaign is now asking his political opponents to tone things down and to not attack him for statements that he himself made on National TV.

Good luck with that, Newt.

Well, So Much For Doing The Honorable Thing

2011-05-16T16:08:00.000-07:00

What an asshole:

Newt Gingrich is condemning individual health insurance mandates today, finally ditching the policy after more than a decade of vocal support that he reiterated as recently as Sunday morning.

"I am for the repeal of Obamacare and I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional," he said in a video posted on his website on Monday and apparently shot this morning outside a Washington, D.C., hotel where Gingrich was addressing an Alzheimer's convention.

In the early 1990s, Gingrich joined many Republican in backing a health care law featuring an individual mandate as an alternative to President Clinton's proposal. He supported a similar policy throughout the 2000s in several of his books, echoing President Obama and Mitt Romney in backing an individual mandate buttressed by financial support for those who can't afford health insurance.

He repeated his support for such a plan yet again on Meet The Press this Sunday after David Gregory played a clip of Newt calling for an individual mandate in 1993.

Fastest flip-flop in history? Perhaps. Newt's flip-flop on Libya was fast, but not this fast.

My Apologies To The Corporate Media

2011-05-15T13:59:00.000-07:00

The other day I was critical of the Mainstream Press for not pointing out that conservatives who were once for the individual mandate are now opposed to ObamaCare, even though its central feature is an individual mandate. Well, David Gregory, on this morning's Meet The Press, pointed out to guest Newt Gingrich that Gingrich himself has a history of supporting the individual mandate. This exchange followed:

GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. And I think there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I have said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond, or in some way, you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.

GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

GREGORY: So you won’t use that issue against Mitt Romney?

GINGRICH: No.

I've had my problems with Gingrich over the years, but I'll give him credit for not trying to run away from his record like so many other Republicans are doing with regard to Health Care Reform. You did the honorable thing this morning, Newt, and I applaud you for it.

Needless to say, members of the radical right aren't all that happy with Gingrich right now. This is from RedState.com:

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press this morning and said two things that won’t exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.

First, he endorsed the individual mandate and said he would not bash Mitt Romney over the individual mandate.

Second, he went after Paul Ryan’s proposal to reform Medicare. Your mileage may vary on Ryan’s plan, but he is both offering up one and using the free market, individual choice approach favored by conservatives.

Newt was not happy with the approach.

Gingrich is already going to have to overcome the apprehensiveness of evangelicals and women in the primary. To also have to overcome the free marketers’ concerns may prove problematic.

Gingrich's opposition to Ryan's proposal to gut Medicare should not be a problem for him, given the number of Republicans who are running away from Ryan like they'd run away from the plague.

But Newt's support for the individual mandate is another story because it now appears that there will be a debate amongst the 2012 GOP presidential candidates as to whether the individual mandate is the right approach. Doesn't the mere existence of such a debate seriously undercut the GOP argument that Obama is a socialist for signing a HCR bill which featured the individual mandate? The folks at Roaring Republican seem to think so:

Republican’s have major problems in 2012, not the least of which are our candidates. With Huckabee out, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich seem that much closer to headlining and that isn’t good for conservatives of any variety, especially on health care.

Romney made a name for himself with a signature Massachusetts health care reform that forced taxpayers to purchase care, known as an individual mandate. The measure is a centerpiece of the Obama federal plan and may prove to be the downfall of the entire legislation if the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. Not great for Romney, even worse for Newt Gingrich. Why?

In the past Gingrich has repeatedly supported an individual mandate, a point he reconfirmed this morning on Meet The Press. *** Essentially then, Gingrich and Romney have removed the lynchpin of the conservative argument. It is OK for the federal government to force individuals to purchase a private product. So then what is next? Carbon offsets? Forced higher education spending? Electric cars? Housing? Insulation? Where do we go from here?

Good question. One of the GOP strengths in the last two years has been its universal opposition to health care reform generally and its universal rejection of the the individual mandate specifically. It got so bad for Romney, in fact, that he actually had to argue the other day that the RomneyCare mandate was somehow different from the ObamaCare mandate. But Gingrich's re-embrace of the individual mandate this morning makes Romney look a lot less like a radical leftist than he did yesterday.

My conclusion? Today was a very good day for both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Romney Crashes And Burns On HCR Speech

2011-05-13T09:54:00.001-07:00

I hope Mitt has good health care coverage because he's getting the shit kicked out of him today, from both the right and the left. And I'm enjoying every minute of it.

I'm not enjoying it because I dislike Romney. I actually think he wouldn't make a bad president. Sure, he's turned flip-flopping into an art form, but the bottom line for me is that he's not fucking insane like most of the rest of the GOP presidential field is. He's a moderate voice within the party.

Romney's problem, however, is that the GOP -- in response to the Obama presidency -- decided to go even further to the right than it was before the 2008 election, meaning that moderates like Romney are now viewed as the enemy. And that is what I find hysterically funny.

When Mitt passed RomneyCare in Massachusetts a few years back, he thought he had all sorts of GOP political cover. After all, the whole thing was originally a Republican idea:

*** [T]he last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, [Orrin] Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time." ***

But we're not just talking ancient history here. As earlier reported on this blog, Jim Freaking DeMint supported individual mandates as recently as 2007, and so did Newt Gingrich. And, as noted here, a lot of other Republicans supported mandates at one time or another, including Robert Bennett, Christopher Bond, Robert Dole, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, Arlen Specter, Daniel Coats, Judd Gregg, and Kay Hutchison.

Why have all these people suddenly flip-flopped on the individual mandate? Simple -- because Obama supported it, and the GOP made a group decision to aggressively oppose everything that Obama supported, even if it meant turning their backs on their own ideas.

I used to be critical of Obama for pushing a health care reform bill that was made up almost entirely of Republican ideas, but now I see the genius of it. I can't wait until the so-called liberal media finally gets off its ass and reports that folks like Jim DeMint and Newt Gingrich supported the individual mandate before they were against it.

By the way, this is pretty funny:

The Obama administration, on Friday, continued to apply a veritable death hug to likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, praising the health care law he passed as Massachusetts’ governor despite Romney’s insistence that there were major distinctions between his and the president’s approach.

“We have said before that health care reform that then Governor Romney signed into law in Massachusetts is in many ways similar to the legislation that resulted in the Affordable Care Act,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in an off-camera briefing at the White House. “And as to the issue of flexibility, as you know, earlier this year we made quite a big deal out of the fact that the president wanted to move up to 2014 … the starting point at which states can ask for waivers to opt out of the Affordable Care Act as long as they, of course, demonstrate their capacity with their own ideas to achieve the same objectives.”

“We wholly endorse flexibility and we obviously feel that Massachusetts took a smart approach towards health care reform,” the press secretary added. “Its provenance was so mainstream, there are great similarities between Massachusetts' law, the Affordable Care Act and legislation proposed by then Rhode Island Republican [Senator] John Chaffee in 1993.”

Wonderful.

It Just Doesn't Get Any Better Than This

2011-05-12T10:48:00.000-07:00

It turns out that even Newt Gingrich was for the individual health insurance mandate before he was against it:

In his post-congressional life, Gingrich has been a vocal champion for mandated insurance coverage -- the very provision of President Obama's health care legislation that the Republican Party now decries as fundamentally unconstitutional. ***

In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." An "individual mandate," he added, should be applied "when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."

And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.

In 2008's "Real Change," he wrote, "Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor."

In 2005's "Winning the Future," he expanded on the idea in more detail: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. ... We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system." ***

I think it speaks volumes that two of the most radical right-wingers in our country -- Newt Gingrich and Jim DeMint -- actually supported mandated insurance coverage for the United States. As noted last Sunday, DeMint even went so far as to state that RomneyCare is "something that I think we should do for the whole country."

If I was Obama, I wouldn't hesitate to mention this fact every time he discusses health care reform. After all, these guys are trying to paint ObamaCare as the most radical law ever passed in this country, which I find hilarious given that DeMint and Gringrich both supported mandated insurance coverage as recently as 2007!

I wonder what happened in 2008 to make these two extremists so radically flip-flop on this issue?

You've Got To Be Kidding

2011-05-11T15:14:00.000-07:00

From TMP:

House Republican freshmen admit that their so-called "MediScare" attacks on Democrats helped them win a big majority in 2010. Democrats had voted for the health care law, which included $500 billion in "cuts" to Medicare -- primarily slashing overpayments to private insurers -- and Republican challengers never let them forget it.

Now, they say, it's time to let bygones be bygones.

Nearly a dozen House Republican freshmen held a press conference outside the Capitol Tuesday morning to "wipe the slate clean," and "hit the reset button."

"Yeah, I mean there's been -- again, this is a both-sides issue," said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) when asked if GOP candidates and the NRCC had engaged in 'MediScare' tactics last year. "To say that one side is blameless in trying to use issues to win votes is just dishonest."

On Tuesday, Kinzinger and 41 of his colleagues sent a letter to President Obama, asking him to rein in Democratic attacks on GOP members who voted for the House budget, which includes a plan to privatize Medicare and cap spending on the program.

"We ask that you stand above partisanship, condemn the disingenuous attacks and work with this Congress to reform spending on entitlement programs," the letter reads.

To preempt the press conference, the DCCC responded to the letter with a long list of NRCC and candidate attack ads and statements from the 2010 election -- all of them targeting Democrats for cutting Medicare, all on behalf of GOP candidates who are now hoping for a truce on Medicare attacks.

Wow -- talk about political cowardice.

Look folks: you all made a political decision to vote for the extreme right-wing policies set out in the Ryan budget, which called for -- among other things -- the end of Medicare, and you want Obama to bail you out just because the chickens have come home to roost? Let me get this straight: You want the very same president you have labeled a socialist and a fascist to come to your rescue? Good luck with that.

Change We Can Believe In

2011-05-11T00:01:00.000-07:00

It was revealed today that it was President Obama who insisted that the assault force going into Pakistan last week to capture or kill bin Laden be large enough to fight its way out if confronted by hostile Pakistani police officers or troops (via the New York Times):

*** Mr. Obama’s decision to increase the size of the force sent into Pakistan shows that he was willing to risk a military confrontation with a close ally in order to capture or kill the leader of Al Qaeda.

Such a fight would have set off an even larger breach with the Pakistanis than has taken place since officials in Islamabad learned that helicopters filled with members of a Navy Seals team had flown undetected into one of their cities, and burst into a compound where Bin Laden was hiding.

One senior Obama administration official, pressed on the rules of engagement for one of the riskiest clandestine operations attempted by the C.I.A. and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command in many years, said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorized to do it.”

The planning also illustrates how little the administration trusted the Pakistanis as they set up their operation. They also rejected a proposal to bring the Pakistanis in on the mission.

Under the original plan, two assault helicopters were going to stay on the Afghanistan side of the border waiting for a call if they were needed. But the aircraft would have been about 90 minutes away from the Bin Laden compound.

About 10 days before the raid, Mr. Obama reviewed the plans and pressed his commanders as to whether they were taking along enough forces to fight their way out if the Pakistanis arrived on the scene and tried to interfere with the operation.

That resulted in the decision to send two more helicopters carrying additional troops. These followed the two lead Black Hawk helicopters that carried the actual assault team. While there was no confrontation with the Pakistanis, one of those backup helicopters was ultimately brought in to the scene of the raid when a Black Hawk was damaged while making a hard landing.

Well, so much for Cheney and others being able to continue criticism of Obama for being too weak when it comes to security issues. In fact, I have no doubt that Cheney, his bat-shit crazy daughter Liz, and the rest of the right-wing establishment will soon be criticizing Obama for being too heavy-handed when it comes to national security generally and Pakistan in particular.

So be it. All I can say is that Obama's stance with regard to Pakistan is a refreshing change from what Bush and Cheney did when they ran the show.

This Should Be Fun (Plus "Hunt for Bin Laden" Time-Line)

2011-05-10T10:18:00.000-07:00

Good luck on this, Mitt -- you're gonna need it:

Call it the first must watch moment of the 2012 presidential cycle. On Thursday, Mitt Romney, Republican frontrunner and one-time health care mandate advocate, will take on the issue dogging his campaign in a speech in Michigan.

According to his campaign, Romney will lay out "his plan to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that lower costs and empower states to craft their own health care solutions" at the the Thursday speech, which he'll give at the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center in Ann Arbor.

The speech will give Romney a chance to change the narrative on a central storyline of his candidacy -- namely that the health care law he signed while governor of Massachusetts in 2006 is a potentially insurmountable political liability. For the man who's been running for the 2012 Republican nomination virtually since he dropped out of the 2008 nomination fight, the stakes really could not be much higher.

On a related note, it looks like Romney isn't going to skip Iowa after all.

And by the way, here is an excellent piece from the Cato Institute explaining why the Bush Administration was unable to capture or kill bin Laden. A lot of the points made in the Cato article are also set out in this hunt for bin Laden timeline. Some highlights:

JANUARY 20, 2001: George W. Bush inaugurated.

JANUARY 29, 2001: Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil reports that 9 days after Bush was inaugurated “going after Saddam Huissein” was “Topic A.”

JANUARY 2001: Condoleezza Rice demotes terrorism czar Richard Clarke out of Cabinet access. [The 9/11 Commission Report. 7/22/04]

JANUARY 2001: During Bush’s first week in office, Richard Clarke requests cabinet level meeting on al Qaeda and Bin Laden. His request was denied.

JUNE 2001: Bush give speech to NATO allies on top five defense issues, and the “only reference to extremists was in Macedonia.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04]

AUGUST 6, 2001: Bush receives Presidential Daiy Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.”

SEPTEMBER 11 2001: Rice has speech scheduled on “the threats and problems of today and the day after.”
On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address “the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday” — but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration’s thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.
SEPTEMBER 11 2001: Five hours after attacks, Rumsfeld asks aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2001: Bush to Richard Clarke “Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.”

OCTOBER 7 2001: U.S. and Great Britian start Operation Enduring Freedom, invading Afghanistan after Taliban refuses to give up Bin Laden.

NOVEMBER 21 2001: 72 days after 9/11, Bush directed Rumsfeld to begin planning for war with Iraq.

DECEMBER 16, 2001: Bin Laden’s voice heard on radio in Tora Bora.

EARLY DECEMBER 2001: Bin Laden escapes at Tora Bora.
The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda.
JANUARY 27 2002: Cheney: Bin Laden “isn’t that big a threat.”

FEBRUARY 2002: Military and intelligence resources diverted to Iraq.

MARCH 13 2002: Bush on Bin Laden “I really don’t spent that much time on him.”

LATE MARCH 2002: Covert commando team assigned to Bin Laden loses 2/3 of its strength as resources are diverted to Iraq. [Washington Post, 10/22/04]

APRIL 6 2002: General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, says “the goal has never been to get bin Laden.” [CNN, 4/6/02]

MARCH 19 2003: Invasion of Iraq begins.

LATE 2005: CIA closes unit focused on capture of bin Laden [un-fucking-believable].

2006: CIA officers with experience in Islamic world drained from al Qaeda hunt to Iraq.

SEPTEMBER 2006: Fred Barnes told by President Bush that the hunt for Bin Laden was “not a top priority use of American resources.”

JANUARY 24 2008: Bush says Bin Laden will be “gotten by a president,” but probably not him. [Fox, 1/24/08]

MARCH 19, 2008: Then-candidate Obama pledges aggressive effort to find Bin Laden in Pakistan.

OCTOBER 7, 2008: Obama: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

NOVEMBER 2, 2008: Obama: “I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al Qaeda.”

January 23, 2009: Days after inauguration, Obama fires at al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

2009: Obama authorizes more drone strikes against terrorist targets than during previous 5 years combined.

MARCH 28 2009: Obama says Bin Laden is in Pakistan, presses for action.

DECEMBER 7, 2009: Obama National Security Advisor James Jones stresses the urgency of finding Bin Laden and speaks “of a renewed campaign to capture or kill him.” [AP, 12/7/09]

AUGUST 1 2010: American intelligence locates unusual compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

MARCH 14-28, 2011: Obama hold series of National Security Council meetings to develop options for capturing or killing Bin Laden. [New York Times, 5/3/11]

APRIL 29 2011 Mr. Obama authorizes the operation against Bin Laden. [New York Times, 5/3/11]

MAY 1, 2011, 4-4:30PM ET: United States forces raid Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad around 1 a.m. Pakistan time. Bin Laden is killed. [New York Times, 5/3/11]

MAY 1, 2011, 11:35PM ET: Obama announces Bin Laden’s death.

Definitely read the entire timeline.

An Oldie But A Goodie

2011-05-09T11:52:00.001-07:00

Here's a re-post of a blog post I did back on August 11, 2007:

Everyone who has talked politics with me over the last couple of weeks knows how pissed off I've been over the fact that Hillary, Dodd, Biden, Romney, and others have been attacking Obama for saying this:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Obama's statement made a lot of sense to me, particularly given that BushCo has, over the last several years, attempted to minimize Pakistan's involvement in 9/11 while at the same time falsely claiming that Saddam was somehow involved in those attacks. But Obama was instantly attacked by Hillary and others as "naive" for saying those things about Pakistan. Mitt Romney even compared Obama to "Dr. Strangelove."

So let me see if I got this straight: Someone finally attempts to introduce some common sense into America's counter-terrorism policy, and he gets attacked for it by both Democrats and Republicans. Why?

Well, Josh Marshall figured it out:

All Obama said was that if we have actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, and Pakistan won't act, we will act.

Clearly, no Republican can quibble with this. They're on the record for invading countries because they might become dangers to us at some point in the future. They're hardly in a position to disagree with Obama if he says we'll hunt down people who committed mass casualty terror attacks within our borders. And I'm not sure Democrats are in much of a position to do so either.

The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got there first. So they need to attack him for saying it.

I am certainly glad to see that Obama isn't backing down from his statements. I liked what he said at the debate the other night about how Hillary and some of the other candidates who are attacking him on this had actually voted to give Bush the authority to launch "the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation."

That was a good start, but he needs to stay on the offensive on this. Hillary's vote to authorize the Iraq War was, in my opinion, one of the greatest acts of political cowardice in recent memory, and voters need to be constantly reminded of this.

Jim "Waterloo" DeMint Has A RomneyCare Problem

2011-05-08T08:44:00.000-07:00

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) famously said in 2009 that "[i]f we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him. . . ."

I have longed been intrigued by the GOP opposition to Health Care Reform, particularly given that the bill finally enacted into law was full of Republican ideas and was essentially patterned after RomneyCare. But it never occurred to me that Senator Jim Freaking DeMint -- an Obama-hating radical right-winger who openly called for the "breaking" of the President over health care reform -- would have ever expressed support for anything like RomneyCare.

Well -- incredibly --he did (via TPM):

Flashback to January 2007. RomneyCare is such a well known achievement that Romney wins DeMint's endorsement because of the law's success.

"[Romney] has demonstrated, when he stepped into government in a very difficult state, that he could work in a difficult partisan environment, take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured," DeMint said. "Those kind of ideas show an ability to bring people together that we haven't seen in national politics for a while. We don't need the nation to be more polarized."

Then in February of that year DeMint explained on Fox News that Romney should do for America what he had done for Massachusetts with health care: "Well, that's something that I think we should do for the whole country."

Hilarious.

Wrong -- But Thanks For Playing Anyway

2011-05-07T09:51:00.000-07:00

"Obama taking (or being given) any credit for the death of Bin Laden is akin to giving credit to Nixon for putting men on the moon. True, it happened while Nixon was President, but as everyone knows..."

-- A comment fom a reader.

Really?

“The administration clearly deserves credit for the success of the operation.”

-- Dick Cheney.

"There are going to be political benefits to the president from this. He deserves it. If this had gone wrong, he would have been hurt very bad politically. It goes right, he should get the benefit of it. We can debate other issues, but no one in our country, in our party should debate or question what the president did here. He did the right thing. He did it brilliantly and he deserves all the credit for it."

-- Rep. Peter King (R-New York)

“I admire the courage of the president.”

-- Rudolph Giuliani

"President Obama's decision to order the strike on bin Laden also required courage; not the bravery of the battlefield but the courage to live with the consequences of a risky decision. Since the mission went well, he is being justly praised, and his political standing has risen. But there can never be a guarantee that a mission of this kind will not go tragically wrong. We are all the beneficiaries of Obama's decision, but in the end the buck stops at one man's desk."

-- Paul Wolfowitz, Bush/Cheney's deputy secretary of defense

"Ladies and gentleman, we need to open the program today by congratulating President Obama. President Obama has done something extremely effective, and when he does, this needs to be pointed out."

-- Rush Fucking Limbaugh (who still couldn't resist putting in a note of sarcasm because . . . well, he's an asshole).

"[The operation was] a gutsy call because so much could have gone wrong. The fact that Obama approved this mission instead of the safer option of bombing the compound was the right call militarily, but also a real roll of the dice politically because of how quickly it could have unraveled.”

-- John Ullyot, a former Marine intelligence officer who served as a Republican spokesman on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Failed Senator Rick Santorum: Asshole of the Week

2011-05-06T14:36:00.000-07:00

"9/11 families and everybody else in America should be furious at this president that he’s walking around taking credit for, you know, getting Osama bin Laden. He didn’t get Osama bin Laden!"

-- Santorum, on Hate Radio today.

When I first heard the early reports that bin Laden had been killed, I thought it would end up being from something akin to a drone attack and that Obama had little-or-no involvement in the operation. Don't get me wrong -- this still would have been a huge victory for the President even if his actual involvement was minimal.

But that wasn't the case. This victory stemmed directly from a policy he put into place, namely, a reversal of George Bush's "We Don't Think About bin Laden Much" Policy to a policy that made the capture/killing of Osama our top priority. Bush's policy was based at least in part on the notion that bin Laden had been maginalized in a cave somewhere and wasn't involved much in al Qaeda's operations. But the intelligence obtained from the raid is showing that he was still very involved in al Qaeda's operations. It is merely icing on the cake for me that Obama kept close tabs on this operation from the beginning and gave the final order to proceed.

This was a huge political risk for the President on several levels. Had this mission failed, folks like the Asshole Santorum would have been calling not only for Obama's impeachment, but also for his execution and deportation. Had this mission failed, there would have been a huge backlash from the Pakistanis instead of the huge embarrassment now being experienced by these so-called "allies." The President's advisors were telling him that the operation only had about a 68% chance of success, but Obama decided to pull the trigger anyway.

I don't think our Commander-in-Chief is taking enough personal credit for the killing of bin Laden, given that a failed operation would have turned Obama into the new millenium's version of President Jimmy Carter. Obama did in less than two-and-a-half years what Bush and Cheney couldn't do in eight. And don't forget: the 9/11 attacks happened on Bush and Cheney's watch -- even though the outgoing Clinton people told the incoming Bush people eight months prior to September 11, 2001 that Al Qaeda would be their top national security priority -- and that Bush himself was warned a month before 9/11 that bin Laden was "determined to strike within the U.S."

The GOP is clearly weak when it comes to national defense. To hell with the notion that the killing of Osama transcends party politics. I openly question the Republican Party's ability to keep this country safe.

Well, So Much For Trump's Chances of Getting The Republican Nomination (With Update)

2011-04-18T08:42:00.000-07:00

Donald Trump wrote this in 2000 (from his book, The America We Deserve):

“We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses. Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork."

You're fired, Mother-Fucker.

UPDATE: Karl Rove said this on FoxNews last Friday:

[Trump's] full embrace of the birther issue means that he’s off there in the nutty right and is now an inconsequential candidate. I’m shocked. The guy’s smarter than this. And you know, the idea that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, being — you know, making that the centerpiece of his campaign, means that he’s just a joke candidate. Let him go ahead and announce for election on “The Apprentice.” The American people aren’t going to be hiring him, and certainly, the Republicans are not going to be hiring him in the Republican primary.

Rove also referred to Trump's idea that Obama's parents would arrange birth notices to ensure his presidential eligibility as “full-throated . . . nuttiness.”

I agree with Rove that Trump is now an inconsequential candidate, but it isn't his embrace of the Birthers that made him so -- it's because he was for health care reform before he was against it. Trump's cozying up to the Birthers was actually a good move politically, given that 51% of GOP primary voters believe that Obama was born outside of the United States (21% said they were "not sure" on this issue).

It's one thing to ignore a bunch of lunatics when they only make up a small percentage of the group you are trying to get to vote for you. But when the lunatics actually make up a majority of the electorate you are targeting, you ignore such people at your peril. Mike Huckabee recognizes this as well -- that's why he recently said that Obama grew up in Kenya, then clumsily tried to convince people that he merely misspoke. Huckabee knew that Obama did not grow up in Kenya, but he also knows that such comments play well with the Birther crowd.

And although I believe that Rove also knows the importance of playing to your base, it is clear that he sees the danger of embracing lunacy when it comes to the General Election. Republicans are apparently more than willing to go along with the whole Birtherism thing, partly because it gives them an opportunity to indirectly express their continuing outrage over the fact that a Black man was elected President of the United States. But independents are not interested in such things, and Rove knows that independents will be turned off by this issue during the run-up to the General Election.

Quote of the Month (With Update)

2011-04-15T09:10:00.000-07:00

"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for. So it's not on the level."

-- President Obama.

Yes, that's right -- Obama actually said this (along with a bunch of other things that were very critical of the GOP). My only problem with the comment is that he said it during what he thought was a private chat. He needs to be saying this stuff openly. He needs to repeat this in every speech that he makes on the budget.

The GOP caused the mess that we're in and the country should be constantly reminded of this. As Bill Maher once said, the Republicans are just like some guy who throws shit on you and then tries to sell you relief from the flies.

UPDATE: It been suggested that Obama knew the microphone was on when he made his comments, which makes me feel a little better. For example, Jed Lewison at Daily Kos stated:

[I]f this was indeed a classic open mic incident, it sure was a convenient one. I'll put it this way: I don't know if the audio was left on intentionally or not, but there's not a chance in hell Fox News is going to do much reporting on what President Obama said, because what he said about Republicans was tough as nails.

I still think he should be saying this stuff openly instead to pretending that he didn't know the microphone was on. But it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Quote Of The Week

2011-04-11T14:07:00.000-07:00

"I think the biggest problem is revenues. It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution. It's a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes."

-- David Stockman, President Reagan's first budget director, on the House Republican budget plan.

There Will Be No Government Shutdown . . .

2011-04-07T08:57:00.000-07:00

. . . because the GOP cannot afford it politically (via Slate):

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday found that 40 percent of voters would blame Republicans if the government shut down, 20 percent would blame Obama, and 20 percent would blame congressional Democrats. Compare that with the poll that was conducted in October 1995, the last time the government shut down. Sixteen years ago, 43 percent of voters said a shutdown would be Republicans' fault, and 32 percent said it would be Bill Clinton's fault. And that was the high watermark for Republicans. They lost ground once the shutdown started.

And with regard to the Government shutdown, here's one Republican who is finally telling the truth about it.

Here's A Great Quote For You

2011-04-06T13:31:00.000-07:00

Welfare has destroyed the African-American family by telling young black women that husbands and fathers are unnecessary and obsolete. Welfare has subsidized illegitimacy by offering financial rewards to women who have more children out of wedlock. We have incentivized fornication rather than marriage, and it's no wonder we are now awash in the disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits.

-- Bryan Fischer, a top official at the American Family Association (I was going to add that the AFA is a right-wing organization, but why point out the obvious).

Yes!

2011-03-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

Via Political Wire:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) will form a presidential exploratory committee, CNN reports.

"The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time. But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates."

Bachmann tells the Des Moines Register: "The Iowa Straw Poll I think will be a key for us. That will be a focal point. And so we'll have to make the decision so we can meaningfully participate in the Iowa Straw Poll."

BTW, this may be one of the funniest quotes ever:

"... No group in America has been more helped by the government than the American Indians."

-- John Stossel on FoxNews, who obviously defines the word "help" a lot differently than most folks.

Curveball Admits to Fabricating Iraqi WMD Story

2011-02-16T09:00:00.000-08:00

[The following is a re-posting of a piece I published in November 2005. I thought it appropriate that I re-post this given the recent news that the Iraqi WMD source known as "Curveball" -- whom Colin Powell heavily relied on during his now-infamous speech to the U.N. Security Council during the run-up to the Iraq Debacle -- has now admitted that he made the whole thing up. In case you're interested, the Iraq War has so far cost American taxpayers $775,000,000,000, resulted to date in the deaths of 4,436 American military personnel, and caused 151,000 Iraqis to lose their lives just in the first three years of the war alone].

Why Does Dick Cheney Like Torture So Much? Because there is no need to "cherry-pick" intelligence when you can grow your own cherries. Atrios sums it up this way:

Bush administration needs evidence to support their war. They use torture techniques designed to extract false confessions to obtain that "evidence," which they then use to sell the war despite knowing full well of the lack of reliability of the information.

But sometimes you still need to cherry-pick, particularly when your goal is to dupe a country into going to war. That's why the Bush Administration had no problem accepting what a source named "Curveball" had to say despite the fact that his German handlers had told U.S. officials that Curveball's information was "not proven" (from The LA Times):

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. "He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy," said a BND official who supervised the case. "He is not a completely normal person," agreed a BND analyst.

But none of that mattered to members of the Bush Regime, and they certainly didn't care that torture produced unreliable results. All they needed to do was simply find some crazy person like Curveball to tell them exactly what they wanted to hear, then torture enough people to supplement what Curveball was telling them, and that would be sufficient to take the United States to war against a fourth-rate military power. It didn't matter whether the "intelligence" they used was complete crap -- all that mattered to BushCo was the quality of the propaganda.

The latest edition of Rolling Stone has this long but excellent article on how the Pentagon propaganda machine really works [link no longer active]:

By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies."

The report also concludes that military planners are shifting away from the Cold War view that power comes from superior weapons systems. Instead, the Pentagon now believes that "combat power can be enhanced by communications networks and technologies that control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare."

I guess that if you are going to lie and manipulate a country into a war, the least you could do is manage the war competently. And, needless to say, that is where BushCo really messed the whole thing up.

I mean, if the BushCo/PNAC coalition would have invaded Iraq with enough troops, secured the borders and the ammo dumps, not disbanded the Iraqi army, not tortured pretty much everyone they got their hands on and then took pictures of it, etc., then this country wouldn't have cared one bit if the dominant rationale for invasion was made up out of whole cloth. Success has a way of making people forget about stuff like that.

Unfortunately for BushCo, unparalleled expertise in prevarication, press manipulation, and discrediting of political enemies could not overcome simple idiocy.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall asks an important question:

This is one of those media questions for which there is no real way to provide a concrete answer. But it is at least worth asking: How many of the stories coming out now under the very broad heading of botched or manipulated intelligence could have been reported and written at more or less any time over the last two years? I suspect the answer is, the great majority of them.

They're getting written now because the president's poor poll numbers make him a readier target.

I know I'm not saying anything most of you don't know. And better late than never, of course. But all working reporters and editors should consider what that says about the profession.

Exactly (With Update)

2011-01-26T08:32:00.000-08:00

This statement from One Wisconsin Now nicely sums up how I feel when Republicans like Paul Ryan -- who gave the GOP rebuttal to last night's SofU speech -- rant about runaway spending:

“I hope that Paul Ryan explains to us why we should trust him and his conservative allies with our finances after they nearly bankrupted the nation with reckless tax cuts for the rich and deregulation schemes to reward companies which put America’s working families last. Paul Ryan himself voted for eight straight Republican budgets that increased spending by a staggering 50 percent. Let’s not forget the so-called fiscal conservatives, like Ryan, who put trillions of dollars in war spending and the unfunded $8 trillion Medicare Part D boondoggle on the checkbooks of our children. Paul Ryan’s ‘Road Map’ would hand our government over to big business and Wall Street speculators, and silence the voices of working families. America needs jobs, not Paul Ryan’s budget-busting, recycled corporate special interest wish list.”

Oh, and by the way, why are all my top hopefuls for the GOP 2012 presidential nomination taking themselves out of the race? My first choice -- Sarah Palin -- recently ruined any chance she had for the nomination, but at least I thought I could rely on my second choice -- Michele Bachmann -- to continue making an effort for the nomination.

But Bachmann's chances are also in the toilet thanks to last night's disastrous attempt to respond to Obama's SotU address, which followed closely on the heels of an idiotic speech she gave a couple days ago when she said -- among other equally-moronic things -- that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States" and wherein she praised "[m]en like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

It seems to me that both Palin and Bachmann have given up on any plan they each had for the 2012 nomination in favor of trying to out-batshit-crazy each other, and that makes me sad.

And speaking of Bachmann, this exchange is hilarious.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin, now that you are finished as a viable presidential candidate, could you do us all a big favor and just go the fuck away. Your idiocy was hugely funny at first, but those of us in the Reality-Based Community have grown tired of it (and please don't tell us that you're one of those people who think that we really didn't land men on the moon).

Romney And The Tea-Baggers

2011-01-21T09:42:00.000-08:00

From The Boston Globe:

New Hampshire Tea Party movement activist Andrew Hemingway is not lacking in contact with likely presidential candidates. He’s talked hockey with Tim Pawlenty. He sat down with former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum at the Concord Country Club. And plans are in the works for Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to appear before a group of Hemingway’s fellow conservatives.

A notable exception among the field of would-be GOP presidential contenders? Mitt Romney. “Romney for the most part is inaccessible,’’ said Hemingway, a Bristol resident who is chairman of the state’s Republican Liberty Caucus. “Pawlenty, I could call him right now and say, ‘Let’s have coffee.’ ’’

As the former Massachusetts governor lays the groundwork for a possible second presidential run, he has largely shunned Tea Party activists in key primary states, including the state he must win if he enters the race, New Hampshire. Thus far, Romney is on track to present himself as the establishment candidate — a responsible, mainstream Republican leader with the necessary financial resources and credentials to beat President Obama. ***

Romney has about as much of a chance of getting the 2012 GOP presidential nomination as does Sarah Palin, and the chances for both are slim-to-none. In fact, I find the whole situation to be nothing short of hilarious.

Palin shot herself in the foot the other day with her incredibly tone-deaf "Blood Libel" remarks, and is now more unpopular than she ever was (which is saying a lot). And Romney, of course, was the author of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which is in many respects identical to the ObamaCare legislation that was passed last year. Given that the Tea-Baggers view ObamaCare as the worst thing to happen to our country since, well . . . the election of Obama, I have no doubt that they are going to crucify Romney in the coming months for being a socialist/fascist/marxist with regard to RomneyCare.

So it makes complete sense to me that Romney is staying away from the Tea-Bagging crowd. What's the point of trying to cozy up to them? The only chance Romney has to keep the Tea-Baggers at bay is to immediately come out with a statement condemning RomneyCare as the biggest mistake he ever made -- even though he once touted it as his "crowning achievement" -- and then begging the Tea-Baggers for forgiveness. He could tell them that he made an honest mistake, given that RomneyCare was based on ideas originally formulated by Republicans.

Such an apology could work, given that the Tea-Bagging horde just might be dumb enough to fall for it. But I don't see Romney going that route. He probably thinks his best chance it to attempt to argue -- as he has previously done -- that RomneyCare works on the state level while ObamaCare cannot work on the national level.

Good luck with that, Mitt. The Tea-Baggers are idiots, but they're not that stupid. Nobody is.

Sorry To Go Off On A Rant Here, But . . .

2011-01-13T11:15:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine posted on Facebook today that the desire for "a return to civility" incorrectly suggests that there was some period of civility in American politics. I agree that it should probably be expressed as a need to return to more civility, given that American politics has definitely been uncivil to some extent since the founding. That's the nature of our system.

But you can't deny the last couple years have been profoundly uncivil (and that is a nice way to put it). I mean, you have a major-party candidate for the U.S. Senate openly calling for the use of "Second Amendment remedies" while in the same breath expressing a need to "take Harry Reid out." I couldn’t believe that one.

Or you have political operatives openly – and quite successfully – instructing people on how to disrupt town hall meetings, and then having right wing activists actually bringing guns to these gatherings.

Or, you have that guy who was arrested yesterday for threatening Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) by saying:

“And you let that fucking scum bag know, that if he ever fucks around with my money, ever the fuck again, I’ll fucking kill him, okay. I’ll round them up, I’ll kill them, I’ll kill his friends, I’ll kill his family, I will kill everybody he fucking knows.”

Sure, this guy is clearly a nut-job -- as was the shooter in Arizona – but don't try to tell me that he was not influenced by all the inflammatory rhetoric from Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, and the rest of the Radical Right.

I think Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) – who got a brick through her office window last year and a bullet through her head last Saturday – said it best a few months ago when she responded to Sarah Palin’s targeting of her district with gun site crosshairs: “When people do that, you got to realize there are consequences to that action.”

If Sarah Palin really thinks she is the actual victim in all this – as she suggested yesterday in her now-infamous “Blood Libel” speech – then why the hell did she take down from her website the gun site crosshairs display after Rep. Giffords was shot in the head?

Well, I guess I'm a fool for expecting some sort of consistency from Palin, who now -- thanks to her idiotic and profoundly ill-timed speech yesterday -- has as much of a chance of being the 2012 GOP presidential nominee as I do of being the first man to walk on the surface of the Sun.

Fucking-A

2011-01-11T13:31:00.000-08:00

George Packer sets the record straight (via Political Wire):

[I]t won’t do to dig up stray comments by Obama, Allen Grayson, or any other Democrat who used metaphors of combat over the past few years, and then try to claim some balance of responsibility in the implied violence of current American politics. (Most of the Obama quotes that appear in the comments were lame attempts to reassure his base that he can get mad and fight back, i.e., signs that he’s practically incapable of personal aggression in politics.)

In fact, there is no balance—none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Anyone who's read this blog can probably figure out how I feel about the suggestion from America's Radical Right that both sides are guilty of using inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, my main complaint over the years has been that the American Left is weak in this regard and doesn't hit back hard enough when the Extreme Right pulls this crap. To argue that there is some sort of parity between the two sides is more than disingenuous -- it's laughable.

Quote Of The Day

2011-01-06T13:09:00.000-08:00

"The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me."

John Boehner, reacting to an outburst from a birther during the reading of the Constitution in the House gallery.

And speaking of the Constitution, this is pretty funny:

Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.

The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in, but watched it on television from the Capitol Visitors Center.

"That wasn't planned. It just worked out that way," said Fitzpatrick at the time, according to local press on hand, which noted that he "happened to be introducing Texas Congressman Pete Sessions while glad-handing his supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center that he secured for them when the House swearing in began."

There is no provision in the Constitution for a remote swearing-in by television. On Thursday, Fitzpatrick was one of the members who read the Constitution from the dais.

Harry Reid Sets Record

2011-01-03T10:38:00.000-08:00

This is quite an accomplishment:

Sen. Harry Reid set a record during the 111th Congress by becoming the chamber’s most successful Majority Leader in history at killing attempted filibusters.
Though the Nevada Democrat’s batting average took a nose dive in 2010, Reid won 69 percent of his total attempts to shut down threatened filibusters in the two years of the 111th Congress that began January 2009.

Two former Majority Leaders — Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) — share the next best record; both won 63 percent of the time in the 109th Congress and the 94th Congress, respectively. * * *

And by the way, I have a feeling this is going to backfire, particularly if Obama's approval numbers continue to rise:

The Republican congressman who is taking over responsibility for congressional oversight called President Obama's administration "one of the most corrupt administrations" on Sunday and predicted that the investigations he is planning over the next two years could result in about $200 billion in savings for U.S. taxpayers.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was bullish in laying out his agenda for the new Congress with Republicans in control of the House.

Issa, who as chairman will have subpoena power, said he will seek to ferret out waste across the federal bureaucracy. While he used fiery rhetoric in describing the Obama administration in a series of television interviews Sunday, he said he will focus on wasteful spending, not the prosecution of White House officials.

Now I've had my problems with Obama's first two years in office, but calling his administration "one of the most corrupt" seems a bit over the top, even for a fucking asshole like Issa.

Quote Of The Century

2010-12-13T15:23:00.000-08:00

From Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah):

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today applauded the decision by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in mandating that every American purchase health insurance or face a fine.

“Today is a great day for liberty,” said Hatch. “Congress must obey the Constitution rather than make it up as we go along. Liberty requires limits on government, and today those limits have been upheld.”

Two problems with this quote: (1) fourteen other judges have upheld this provision, and (2) Orrin Hatch (are you ready for this) actually supported a bill that would have required an individual mandate.

Isn't it great to be a Republican? You can pretty much say or do whatever you want, and nobody in the so-called liberal media will ever call you on it. If a Democrat pulled a flip-flop of this magnitude, you'd never hear the end of it from FoxNews.

Palin Even Sucks At Hunting

2010-12-08T10:12:00.000-08:00

Geesus:

"Sarah Palin took shots at a caribou on her TLC reality show; now critics are taking aim at Palin's hunting skills," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"A piece on The Awl pointed out several rookie mistakes that Palin apparently made during a hunting trip with her father that she filmed for Sarah Palin's Alaska. Among them was Palin's failure to sight her rifle before shooting and not personally loading shells into the gun she used. PETA is predictably responding negatively to the hunting footage as well."

Of course, Palin's performance as a hunter "would likely not be an issue if she hadn't touted her hunting experience in previous interviews."

Look, how hard is it to find a hunting expert up in Alaska to tell you how to do it right. It would be one thing if this was the first hunting trip that she'd even been on, but Christ -- she's held herself out as being the greatest hunter evah.

4th Amendment Underclothes

2010-11-30T09:09:00.000-08:00

I like it.

Throwing Cans Of Worms In Glass Houses

2010-10-22T14:00:00.000-07:00

I love this:

In the wake of news that Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, recently contacted Anita Hill, the woman behind a sexual harassment scandal that almost derailed the Justice during his confirmation hearings, Thomas's ex-girlfriend is now seeking to enter the fray with serious new allegations about his demeanor in the years before the Hill controversy. In an interview with the Washington Post, Lillian McEwen says Hill's allegations fit a pattern:

"He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners," McEwen told the Post, adding that he was particularly "partial to women with large breasts" and even would ask woman about their bra size.

"He was obsessed with porn," McEwen also said of Thomas, a claim that is particularly relevant to Hill's allegations that the then-chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had repeatedly relayed scenes from pornographic movies to her. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting," McEwen continued.

I bet Virginia Thomas is beginning to regret her decision to ask Anita Hill for an apology. Oh yes.

God Help Us

2010-10-19T11:15:00.000-07:00

From The AP:

Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine. Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools." "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience. "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion. "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment." * * *

Please God -- Let This Happen

2010-09-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

From Political Wire:

In an interview on Fox News, Sarah Palin (R) said she'd "offer herself up" to run for president in 2012 -- if no other good candidate stepped forward.

Said Palin: "A reason to run is if nobody else were to step up with the solutions that are needed to get the economy back on the right track and to be so committed to our national security that they are going to do all that they can, including fighting those on the extreme left who seem to want to dismantle some of our national security tools that we have in place. If nobody else wanted to step up... I would offer myself up in the name of service to the public."

I Love This

2010-09-22T10:59:00.000-07:00

From CQ Politics:

Senate Republicans on Wednesday were expected to name a temporary replacement for Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski as their party leader on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to punish her for launching a write-in campaign after losing the GOP primary election. * * *

Murkowski, of course, isn't really losing much given that she's out of the Senate anyway if her write-in candidacy fails. Her five-word response to the GOP Senate leadership for doing this to her should simply be: Go Piss Up A Rope.

What A Mess (With Updates)

2010-09-14T11:36:00.000-07:00

Boehner really stuck his foot in it this time:

Democrats are calling it a game-changer that might just save their butts in November. Republicans are shouting loudly from the rooftops they want the Bush-era tax cuts to be made permanent and that they think that means they will win this fall.

Whichever happens on Nov. 2, it all started with Minority Leader John Boehner's surprise embrace for President Obama's tax-cut plan. Boehner said if it was the only option presented to his party, he'd support Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats in voting for an extension of the tax cuts for the middle class only.

Republicans are being very coy about blasting Boehner (R-OH) openly just as the Democrats are reminding the nation that he wants to be speaker of the House should the GOP win back control. But reading between the lines of their actions, it's pretty clear that few of his colleagues agree with Boehner. Could it spell trouble for the GOP?

Ironically, I think Boehner is on the right track here. After all, if the Dems propose a middle class tax cut, would the GOP really be stupid enough to oppose it simply because rich people don't get one as well? That would be political suicide.

The Democrats are in a great position on this because they don't have to raise taxes on anyone. The Bush tax cuts expire, so no Democrat would actually have to cast a vote raising anyone's taxes. Plus, recent polling is firmly on the Dems' side on this particular issue.

The time has come for the Democratic Party to really start pushing back hard. Pre-election gifts like this one don't come around very often.

UPDATE: And speaking of political suicide:

Conservative activist Christine O'Donnell has earned a stunning victory in Delaware's Republican Senate primary.

O'Donnell's shocking win over longtime Congressman Mike Castle gives new energy to the tea party movement, which targeted Castle after victories by Republican tea party candidates in the Alaska and Nevada Senate primaries.

With 78 percent of precincts reporting, O'Donnell had 54 percent to 46 percent for Castle, a former two-term governor and the longest serving congressman in Delaware history.

While attracting enough GOP conservatives to defeat Castle, a leader of Republican moderates in Congress, O'Donnell will have a hard time defeating Democrat Chris Coons in November for the Senate seat vacated by Joe Biden after he was elected vice president.

Republican officials said privately before Tuesday's primary that they intended to write off the seat if O'Donnell was victorious against Castle. * * *

UPDATE II: This tweet from Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling -- reflecting the result of a poll PPP will be releasing today -- shows why the Republican Party Establishment has given up on Tea-Bagger O'Donnell:

"Castle primary voters supports Coons over O'Donnell 44-28 in general election."

I watched Fox News this morning -- as I always do when things go horribly wrong for the Republicans -- and Karl Rove was furious that O'Donnell won in Delaware. It was freaking hilarious.

Look, I Know The Radical Christian Right Is Fucked Up And All . . .

2010-08-31T08:13:00.000-07:00

. . . but Geesus:

Focus on the Family has a message for gay rights activists: stay off the playground.

Candi Cushman, an education analyst for the James Dobson-founded group, told The Denver Post this weekend that gay rights advocates have inserted their agenda into anti-bullying efforts, at the expense of Christian values.

"We feel more and more that activists are being deceptive in using anti-bullying rhetoric to introduce their viewpoints, while the viewpoint of Christian students and parents are increasingly belittled," Cushman told the Post.

In an email to TPM, Cushman expanded her argument. "Listing certain categories creates a system ripe for reverse discrimination, sending the message that certain characteristics are more worthy of protection than others," she said.

Cushman's argument has two levels: first, she says anti-bullying efforts wrongly put the focus on the "characteristics of the victim" instead of the "wrong actions of the bullies." Second, she thinks that gay rights activists are using the whole issue to sneak their agenda into the nation's schools. She denounced the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). * * *

The Partial Rehabilitation of George W. Bush (at least in my mind)

2010-08-11T09:12:00.000-07:00

I found this Atlantic article on Iran interesting, particularly this part (via Think Progress):

[E]ven Bush balked at attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, and discouraged the Israelis from carrying out the attack on their own. (Bush would sometimes mock those aides and commentators who advocated an attack on Iran, even referring to the conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol as “the bomber boys,” according to two people I spoke with who overheard this.)

As noted in the above-linked Think Progress post, Dick Cheney "has admitted that he was in favor of a U.S. attack on Iran, but was vetoed by President Bush."

Don't get me wrong -- I still think that Bush was an awful president. But every so often I hear something about his presidency -- like his above-referenced refusal to attack Iran -- that makes me think he might not have been as big of a tool that he appeared to be. One example of this was when he openly questioned the need for a second tax cut for the rich -- he told Cheney something like, "didn't the rich already get one of these?"

Cheney ultimately convinced him that they in fact did need to further loot the treasury and hand out the tax cut; but what I found interesting about the aforementioned Iraq decision was that Cheney was unable to convince Bush to bomb Iran, something that Cheney really wanted him to do.

Quote Of The Week (With Update)

2010-08-03T09:33:00.000-07:00

"We needed to have the press to be our friend. * * * We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it reported."

-- Sharron Angle, the teabagger running against Harry Reid, on FoxNews yesterday.

UPDATE: If you are still uncertain as to whether Sharron Angle is a batshit-crazy right-wing extremist Bible-beating tea-bagger, try this on for size:

It has become commonplace for Republicans to claim that Democratic policies violate this or that part of the Constitution. But Nevada's Senate Republican candidate Sharron Angle is taking that one step further, claiming that her opponent's legislative victories amount to a violation of the Bible's First Commandment.

"[T]hese programs that you mentioned -- that [President] Obama has going with [Harry] Reid and [Nancy] Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God," Angle said in a little noticed interview with Christian Radio this past spring. "And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government." * * *

Sen. David Vitter Is A Birther

2010-07-13T09:22:00.000-07:00

In other words, Vitter is a racist:

Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana says he supports conservative organizations challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship in court.

Vitter, who is running for re-election, made the comments at a town hall-style event in Metairie, La., on Sunday when a constituent asked what he would do about what the questioner said was Obama's "refusal to produce a valid birth certificate."

Such claims about Obama's birth certificate have been discredited. But with the crowd applauding the question, Vitter responded that although he doesn't personally have legal standing to bring litigation, he supports "conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court," according to a video of the event. * * *

I doubt, however, that his racist position will hurt him in his home state.

Quote of the Day

2010-06-30T13:43:00.000-07:00

“With Kagan’s confirmation hearings expected to last most of the week, Republicans may still have time to make cases against Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Gandhi.”

-- Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, commenting on the extent that Legendary Racist Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions (R-Ala) and other Republican senators have been attacking Thurgood Marshall during the Kagan confirmation hearings.

Quote Of The Week

2010-06-23T10:32:00.000-07:00

"Actually, the oil is under a mile of sea water and another two-and-a-half miles under solid sediment earth, so I think God's done enough to prevent these spills."

-- Jon Stewart, responding to the Louisiana Senate's recent Designation of Statewide Prayer which stated, among other things, that mortals cannot solve the BP spill problem and that "it is clearly time for a miracle for us."

With regard to the whole Joe Barton BP apology fiasco, a recent poll shows that this is a very good issue for the Democrats (via Political Wire):

A new Public Policy Polling survey in Texas suggests Republicans are well advised to stay clear of Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) apology to oil giant BP for how they were treated by the Obama administration.

"The poll numbers indicate this is an issue where Democrats could find some resonance with independent voters. They see Barton negatively by a 35% to 14% margin, think he should lose his leadership post by a 45% to 29% spread, think Obama was right on this issue 59% to 29%, and oppose an apology to BP 75% to 12%. Given those numbers GOP leaders would probably like to see this issue disappear as soon as possible."

It appears, however, that Barton will keep his leadership post, which is great news for the Democrats.

Looks Like Republican Party Leaders Owe Rush Limbaugh An Apology (With Update)

2010-06-22T08:49:00.000-07:00

From Political Wire:

Rush Limbaugh took aim at Republican leaders for rushing to demand Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) retract his controversial apology to oil giant BP during last week's congressional hearing, CNN reports.

Said Limbaugh: "It was a shakedown pure and simple. And somebody had the audacity to call it what it was and now everybody's running for the hills."

Limbaugh does have a point -- to a certain extent. All Barton was doing last week when he issued his "apology" to BP was echoing one set of GOP talking points on this issue. As Eugene Robinson pointed out this morning:

Joe Barton is not alone. The Texas congressman's lavish sympathy for BP -- which he sees not as perpetrator of a preventable disaster but as victim of a White House "shakedown" -- is actually what passes for mainstream opinion among conservative Republicans today. * * *

Had Barton made these comments on FoxNews or on Limbaugh's show, no controversy would have emerged. His mistake was that he made these comments during a televised Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, a committee on which he is the ranking Republican.

I, of course, think this whole thing is hilarious. The GOP basically has two sets of talking points on this issue. One set -- the anti-Obama talking points -- is for use only on radical right-wing talk radio and FoxNews, and is designed to keep the extremists of the party in line. The other set of talking points -- which features anti-BP rhetoric -- is designed for mainstream consumption with an eye toward the November Mid-Terms. The only time the GOP gets in trouble on this is when the radical set of talking points leaks into the mainstream coverage, which is what happened last week when Joe Barton opened his mouth in the wrong venue.

The amazing part of all this is that the Republicans feel comfortable having two completely different sets of talking points on this issue, and they are right to feel this way because (1) they know that most Republicans only get their news from Fox and the rest of the Extreme Right Wing Echo Chamber, and (2) they know that the Democrats will most likely give them a pass on this particular hypocrisy.

It's a nice place for the GOP to be, so long as folks like Barton simply remember that certain talking points should only be used for specific audiences. Needless to say, if the Democrats tried such a two-faced approach on an issue, the GOP would crucify them.

UPDATE: Jon Stewart gets it.

Quote Of The Week

2010-06-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

"What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction. Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments."

-- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, responding to GOP Rep. Joe Barton's apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward wherein Barton said, among other things, that he's "ashamed" of the American response to BP’s oil spill and wherein he described the creation of the $20 billion claims fund as a "tragedy of the first proportion."

Quote of the Day

2010-06-08T10:20:00.000-07:00

"It'd be a disaster for the Republican party."

-- GOP operative James Lacy, commenting on what the effect would be if Birther Queen Orly Taitz actually won the GOP primary for California Secretary of State.

After 40 Years?

2010-06-01T11:27:00.000-07:00

Wow:

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife Tipper are separating after four decades of marriage. They just celebrated their 40th anniversary two weeks ago.

The Gores called the separation "a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together." * * *

Oh Come On!

2010-05-23T13:21:00.000-07:00

From the AP:

Voters dressed in chicken costumes won't be allowed inside Nevada polling places this year.

State election officials on Friday added chicken suits to the list of banned items after weeks of ridicule directed at Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden.

The millionaire casino executive and former beauty queen recently suggested that people barter with doctors for medical care, like when "our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor."

Democrats responded by setting up a website, "Chickens for Checkups," and by sending volunteers in chicken suits to her campaign events. * * *

This Is Going To Be Way Too Easy (With Update)

2010-05-20T13:02:00.001-07:00

Rand Paul's victory in the Kentucky GOP Senate primary is nothing short of a disaster for the Republican Party. The guy is a nut case. He recently restated his position that he would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he believes businesses should have the right to engage in racial discrimination, and he thinks that the Americans with Disabilities Act should be abolished. Even right-wing extremist and Rand Paul supporter Jim DeMint had to distance himself from Paul today. He's too radical even for the likes of Jim DeMint!

Paul has since tried to reverse himself on some of these issues, but the Kentucky Senate race should definitely be a fun one to watch. According to a Rasmussen poll that came out today, Paul currently enjoys a 25-point lead over his Democratic opponent. We'll see how long those numbers hold up.

UPDATE: Rand Paul -- a gift that just keeps on giving.

Quote of the Week

2010-05-19T09:14:00.000-07:00

"If you can't win a seat that is trending Republican in a year like this, then where is the wave?"

-- Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia, commenting on the GOP's loss last night in the special election in Pennsylvania to fill John Murtha's seat.

It is certainly a good question, given that John McCain carried that particular district in 2008. Indeed, the Democrats must be feeling pretty good today. Mitch McConnell basically got his ass handed to him last night when Tea Bagger Rand Paul defeated McConnell's hand-picked candidate in Kentucky's Republican Senate primary.

Arlen Specter's loss in Pennsylvania may, at first blush, look like a set-back for the Democrats, but Sestak will be a far more effective candidate in the general election than Specter could have been. And I couldn't be happier that Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) failed to get anywhere near enough votes to avoid a run-off in Arkansas' Democratic Senate primary. Let's hope she loses to Halter in the June run-off.

Even Politico thinks that the Republicans were the big losers yesterday.

Most Hilarious Video Ever

2010-05-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

Here it is.

I guess a little background is needed: The Republican Congressman in this pro-abstinence video -- Mark Souder -- just announced his resignation because he had an affair with the female staffer who played the part of the interviewer in the above-linked pro-abstinence video.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: What the hell is wrong with these people?

The Folks In Arizona Pay A Hefty Price For Being Dicks

2010-05-10T15:42:00.000-07:00

Good thing this didn't happen during tough economic times:

Several days before Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona's controversial immigration bill, Congressman Raul Grijalva called on the rest of the nation to boycott his home state if the new proposal became law. National organizations, Grijalva said, should cancel upcoming conventions slated to be held there.

"If the state follows through with this, the cost will be high," Grijalva warned.

Turns out, he was right: so far, the state has lost between $6 million and $10 million in projected business revenue, with 23 group hotel bookings--from small meetings to large conventions--having been canceled in protest since the stroke of Brewer's pen, according to the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association.

Hotels don't want to disclose which clients have canceled, for fear of alienating businesses. So far, the most widely publicized cancelation has come from the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

"It's clear that the bill has had an economic impact on the state. It's impossible to say that it hasn't," says Glenn Hamer, CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. * * *

By the way: Good one, Arnold.

This Pretty Much Says It All

2010-05-07T10:34:00.000-07:00

From Think Progress:

Everyone keeps talking about how badly the Democrats are going to get their asses handed to them this November, but this jobs creation chart has to be scaring the hell out of the GOP.

Oh For Christ's Sake

2010-05-05T13:16:00.000-07:00

What is it with these people?

Bad News For Republicans

2010-05-03T14:03:00.000-07:00

More folks are thinking that the economy is getting better:

Americans are more optimistic about the future of the economy than they were last month, according to a new CBS News/ New York Times poll. Forty-one percent of Americans now say the economy is improving, up eight points from April and more than at any time during this recession. Just 15 percent think the economy is getting worse, according to the poll, conducted April 28 - May 2.

There has also been a small bump in President Obama's approval rating on the economy. In a five-point increase from last month, 48 percent now approve of the job he's doing on the economy. That's the highest approval rating on his handling of the economy the president has seen since last November. Forty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of it. * * *

Just the other day, House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the GOP could win 100 additional seats in the November midterm elections. But that could be hard to do if the economy continues to improve over the next six months.

Arizona Limits Itself To One Piece Of Racist Legislation Per Month

2010-04-30T07:43:00.000-07:00

After all, the folks down in Arizona don't want to appear too bat-shit crazy:

A bill to require presidential candidates to show their birth certificates to get on Arizona's ballot won't win approval from state lawmakers.

With legislators working toward adjournment of their annual session, the sponsor of the bill says it won't get a state Senate vote because some fellow Republicans don't support it.

The House narrowly approved the measure last week.

The bill is an outgrowth of some Obama critics' doubts over whether he was born in the United States. Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship, and his Hawaiian birth certificate has been made public, along with newspaper birth notices.

I Think He Meant To Say Bush

2010-04-26T13:54:00.000-07:00

“I believe that Barack Obama is God’s punishment on us today, but in 2012, we are going to make Obama a one-term president.”

-- Texas state representative Leo Berman, at a Glenn Beck event last Saturday.

So Leo, did the Lord God actually tell you that your punishment will only last four years and not eight years or longer? Only four years of punishment for what you GOP motherfuckers did to our country?

I believe The Almighty is letting you off easy.

Quote of the Week

2010-04-23T09:04:00.000-07:00

"I outed him as a straight person."

-- Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.) who accused Gregg Kravitz, her primary opponent, of pretending to be bisexual in order to pander to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters in her district.

My Favorite Part About Wall Street Reform Legislation

2010-04-22T09:13:00.000-07:00

Now that it looks like Wall Street Reform will pass the Senate with at least some GOP support, does that mean that some Republicans will actually attend the signing ceremony? If it does indeed mean that, won't the GOPers who think that Obama is an illegal alien (one-half of them) and those who think he is the Anti-Christ (one-quarter of them) be totally pissed off?

I'm convinced that the main reason the Republicans initially decided to oppose Obama on everything is because they were afraid to tick off the Birthers, who -- as noted above -- make up half the GOP. But somewhere along the line, the Republican Party decided that is was far more perilous to vote against Wall Street Reform, so they concluded that it would be better to cooperate with Obama on this even though half of the Republicans believe that Obama is not an American citizen and therefore not a legitimate president.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

An Honest Teabagger

2010-04-16T11:00:00.000-07:00

"It's not just because he's black. I wish I could tell you that I loved this guy, that he was a great president, that I had faith in him. But I have none. Zero."

-- Teabagger Jerry Johnson, explaining that race is only part of the reason he does not like Obama.

Quote of the Week

2010-04-14T09:38:00.000-07:00

[W]e're hoping that President Obama's policies don't succeed. . . .

-- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), directly expressing her sincere hope that the President will not be able to solve any of the problems that the GOP caused (and indirectly expressing her deep hatred for America).

Limbaugh's Idiocy On Display Once Again

2010-04-13T10:50:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh said this the other day with regard to the recent mining disaster in West Virginia:

Was there no union responsibility for improving mine safety? Where was the union here? Where was the union? The union is generally holding these companies up demanding all kinds of safety. Why were these miners continuing to work in what apparently was an unsafe atmosphere?

Brad Johnson at ThinkProgress offers up this response:

There’s a simple reason the union didn’t protect the miners: the Upper Big Branch Mine, like nearly all of the mines under Massey CEO Don Blankenship’s control, is non-union. In fact, the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) “tried three times to organize the Upper Big Branch mine, but even with getting nearly 70 percent of workers to sign cards saying they wanted to vote for a union, Blankenship personally met with workers to threaten them with closing down the mine and losing their jobs if they voted for a union.”

Of course, none of this really matters because Limbaugh can say whatever he wants and his listeners will believe all of it. I doubt a lot of Dittoheads visit the ThinkProgress website.