Curveball Admits to Fabricating Iraqi WMD Story

[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)

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

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 is 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 Baggers are idiots, but they're not that stupid. Nobody is.

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

I like it.

Throwing Cans Of Worms In Glass Houses

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

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

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

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)

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 . . .

. . . 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)

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)

"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

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

“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

"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)

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

"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

"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?

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!

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)

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

"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

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

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

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

What is it with these people?

Bad News For Republicans

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

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

“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

"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

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

"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

[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

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.

It Begins

Here we go:

A northern Idaho man who police say fired his shotgun near a U.S. census worker who was trying to deliver a census form has been cited for exhibition of a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor. * * *

FauxNews Should Throw In The Towel On This One

I love watching FoxNews when things are going wrong for the Republicans, so -- needless to say -- I was watching Fox a lot when Obama and the Dems passed Health Care Reform a couple weeks ago. It was hilarious.

The Fox talking heads were clearly agitated by the fact that the bill had passed, and they even went after Joe Biden in a big way for telling Obama that "This is a big fucking deal" when the President and Vice-President were too close to an open microphone. The funny part was that at least two of Fox's "guest" commentators thought it was a great moment, and I agreed with them.

In fact, Biden's "F Bomb" was my favorite part of the whole process. Even my Mom thought it was kicked ass, despite the fact that the word in question is not one of her favorites (and, to be fair and balanced, I'm pretty sure she didn't use the phrase "kick ass" to describe it).

But Fox just can't let this one go:

Fox News, which went bonkers over the “F-bomb” that Joe Biden dropped at the health care signing ceremony, has now done a poll to see if their flood-the-zone coverage of that very consequential moment has had an impact.

The answer is Not So Much, according to the poll’s internals:

As you may have heard, Vice President Joe Biden used foul language to describe how important he thought passage of the new health care bill was when he whispered to President Obama “this is a big expletive deal” — do you think the vice president’s use of foul language to describe the bill was offensive, or not?

Yes, offensive: 37%

No, not offensive: 57%

It was a great moment, Fox. Deal with it.

Palin/Bachmann 2012!!

Please God -- let this happen:

HANNITY: Are either one of you considering a run for the presidency in 2012? Just asking. Governor Palin, I’ll start — I’ll start with you. But before I get their answers, how many of would you like to see a Palin-Bachmann ticket?

PALIN: Well that sounds kind of cool. That sounds kind of cool.

HANNITY: Governor Palin, are you thinking about a run again?

PALIN: As I have said, I’m not going to close any doors that perhaps would be open.

By the way, on the issue of Republicans who don't know what the hell they are talking about, here is an excellent article concerning a recent interview with Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. I found this exchange on the pre-existing conditions issue to be particularly interesting:

If you somehow tell companies they can no longer deny coverage of pre-existing conditions, you need to provide them another way to eliminate free riders. Under the new law, individual mandates are that tool. As long as everyone is required to have coverage, nobody can game the system and there’s no longer any justification to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

So if the GOP plan is going to ensure that pre-existing conditions are covered, as Chambliss and McConnell suggested, how would they do it without individual mandates? What mechanism would they use?

Chambliss and McConnell had no answer. Literally.

After Chambliss fumbled an initial response, McConnell broke in with a long and familiar condemnation of the Democratic plan, including its failure to include tort reform. After a few minutes, I interrupted and brought him back to the question: OK, but how are the Republicans going to cover pre-existing conditions?

“The premiums are going up either way,” he said.

OK, I responded, a little stunned. That doesn’t explain how the Republicans intend to cover pre-existing conditions.

“The premiums are going up either way,” he repeated. That was that. We moved on, and I still don’t have my answer.

Don't forget -- the individual mandate was originally a GOP idea. It's pretty clear to me that the Republicans did not think it through when they decided to support coverage for pre-existing conditions but not support the individual mandate, which was their idea in the first place.

Do You Take Prison With Your Tea?

Oops:

Charles Alan Wilson, a 64-year-old Washington man who was angered over health care reform, has been charged with threatening a federal official for allegedly making profanity and misogyny-laced death threats in messages left for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington announced today.

The complaint alleges that Wilson called Murray's office multiple times between March 22 -- the day after the health bill passed the House -- and April 4. In one message, he allegedly said that Murray "had a target on her back." In another, he allegedly said, "I want to (expletive) kill you."

The press release from the U.S. attorney continues: "Wilson discussed assisting others in an attempt to kill the senator. Wilson's threats were in response to the passage of the Health Care Reform Act." Wilson was arrested this morning. ***

By the way, you can put this one in the "No Surprise There" category.

Quote Of The Week

"Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm? You planted some seeds and they came out the next day. 'Nothing's happened. There's no crop. We're gonna to starve. Oh, no! It's a disaster!'"

Barack Obama, mocking reporters and pundits for their impatience with regard to the effects of the health care reform bill.

With regard to health care reform, it gives me nothing but pleasure to think that people like this idiot spend most of their day in a rage because these basic reforms are now the law of the land.

Right On Time

I've said this before, but the bottom line for the Democrats with regard to the upcoming Mid-Term elections is jobs creation. Health Care Reform, Finance Reform, and all the other "Reforms" won't mean squat if this economy didn't start creating jobs by the Spring of 2010.

Well, Spring is here, and so are the jobs:

The US economy created 162,000 jobs last month as the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.7 per cent, the government said on Friday, bolstering hopes that the economic recovery is gathering steam.

Temporary hiring by the government for the census only accounted for some 48,000 new jobs in March, meaning the private sector has begun churning out new positions.

Economists had expected non-farm payrolls to grow by about 200,000 positions, but they had factored in about 80,000 in temporary census hiring. ***

In addition, the figures for January and February 2010 have been revised and now show a net total of 62,000 positions.

Clearly, this is good news for the Democrats. As far as the Mid-Term elections are concerned, jobs creation needed to start now -- as opposed to this summer -- because the American people need time to get accustomed to the fact that our economy is on the mend and folks are being hired again.

Although the unemployment rate has remained steady at 9.7%, the truth is that our economy would have to create 200,000 jobs a month for an entire year just to reduce the rate by one point, meaning the Dems will probably be stuck with a high unemployment rate for quite awhile. Oh well.

By the way, Obama was on CBS this morning, and he was asked about the level of enmity on talk radio right now. Here is what he had to say:

"Well, I think, when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's pretty apparent, and it's troublesome." But, you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when you've got an economy that's making people more anxious, but that's not the vast majority of Americans."

Obama also stated that those Americans know he wants what's best for the country and that he is trying to do what's right, even if they disagree with him. He's clearly trying to take the high road here, and although I've been critical of him for keeping an even keel and not getting angry enough at all the bullshittery, I think I understand what he is trying to do.

Obama truly believes that things will eventually calm down in this country, and he doesn't seem to want to burn any bridges by aggressively going after the folks who wish him nothing but ill right now. He's acting presidential. Let's see if this strategy pays off in the long term.

Romney's Blunder (With Update)

I think Mitt Romney blew a big opportunity. He should have kept his public comments minimal during the health care reform debate, then -- when the bill passed -- he should have come out and said, "Although there are parts of the bill I do not like, I find the overall package to be quite good and I support what the Congress and President Obama have done."

Sure, he would have been mercilessly attacked by the Tea-Baggers and all the Republicans who are afraid of the Tea-Baggers (which is all of them), but Romney isn't in Congress and isn't running for anything in 2010. The 2012 primaries are still a long ways off and anything can happen between now and then. Hell, just two short months ago, the popular thinking in this country was that Health Care Reform was dead and Obama's presidency was crippled as a result. Who knows what the political landscape will be like a year from now.

Instead, Romney currently finds himself in an impossible position -- he now has to distance himself from legislation that he himself came up with (i.e., RomneyCare in Massachusetts), and you know that his opponents for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination are going to repeatedly point out that ObamaCare is really just RomneyCare. In fact, such attacks have already begun. My point is that Romney was going to be attacked for his Massachusetts plan anyway, so why should he distance himself from it by opposing ObamaCare and in the process look like the Mother of All Flip-Floppers? By expressing support for ObamaCare, Romney could have defended himself from a position of strength and maybe even counter-attacked.

Every other GOP candidate for 2012 is going to be attacking Health Care Reform. Romney could have separated himself from the pack on this issue, and I think it was a big mistake for him not to do that. The GOP plan was to defeat the reform, and by doing so, break Obama's presidency. That strategy failed; but given that every Republican supported the strategy, it was a failure for every Republican. It didn't have to be that way.

By the way, will this be the new GOP anti-reform talking point?

UPDATE: John Cornyn's strategy on how to deal with ObamaCare? Praise it by faintly damning it:

NRSC Chairman John Cornyn plans to send a memo to Republican candidates Tuesday urging them to be proactive in shaping the campaign debate on health care and not let Democrats "distort our record and our ideas." "On the trail, it's critical that we remind people of the fact that it was Republicans who fought to force insurance companies to compete with one another over state lines for Americans' business. It was Republicans who fought to reform the junk lawsuits that raise medical costs and lower quality by forcing doctors to practice 'defensive medicine,'" Cornyn writes, emphasizing the GOP's record beyond its opposition to the Obama-backed health care bill. "It was Republicans who fought for policies that protected Americans with preexisting conditions and it was Republicans who proposed health care reforms that didn't cut Medicare by $500 billion and raise Americans' taxes by $400 million. It's Republicans who continue to believe that we should focus on reforms which actually lower health care costs for Americans, first and foremost." If the GOP thinks health care is going to work to their advantage this year, that doesn't mean they expect that to happen passively.

RepubliCare (With Update)

There is a lot of stuff coming out on how much of the recently-passed health care reform bill was really just a long list of ideas that Republicans had previously embraced. It's been fairly clear to me for quite some time that the HCR bill was mostly populated with Republican ideas, but neither the left or the right seemed to want to talk about this issue.

And for good reason: The GOP was simply out to "break" Obama no matter how many Republican ideas he embraced, and the Democrats certainly didn't want to point out that the reform package was pretty much based on ideas originally proposed by conservatives (their base wouldn't have liked that at all).

But now that health care reform is the law of the land, this story is starting to gather steam. Yesterday, we learned that Bush speechwriter David Frum, who was recently fired by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), made the following comment to fellow conservative Bruce Bartlett:

Since, [Frum] is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Imagine that – a conservative “think” tank muzzled because too many of its members agreed with the President on how to solve one of the critical problems of our time. And the other side calls us Stalinists?

I’ll give the GOP credit, though – they had so much anti-Obama solidarity on this health care reform issue that the Republicans were even able to shut down their own intellectuals. [I was about to finish that thought with “Only in America,” but that’s about as un-American as you can get].

There's more. Check out this video. If you can't get video at your workplace, what it shows is an excerpt from an interview today wherein Campbell Brown at CNN asked GOP senator Orrin Hatch why he's against health care reform now even though he actually supported an individual mandate back in 1993. Hatch's response:

"In 1993, we were trying to kill HillaryCare, and I didn't pay any attention to [the individual mandate], because that was a part of a bill I just hadn't centered on, but since then, of course, 17 years later, when it comes up and I know it's possible it's going to pass, I looked at it, and constitutionally, I came to the conclusion, and everyone came to the conclusion, that this would be the first time in history that the federal government requires you to buy something you don't want."

I'm not even going to try to parse Hatch's bullshit response, because the point is that the media is finally starting to realize that "ObamaCare" is actually "RepubliCare" (or maybe we should just call it RomneyCare).

In any event, the Republicans really blew it on this issue, because all they had to do was embrace their own ideas! They could have easily claimed credit for a majority of the bill, and Obama most likely would have let them do it. Had the GOP done that, there would have been overwhelming bipartisan support for the reforms, and the signing ceremony that happened earlier in the week would have been a great day for all Americans as opposed to what it turned out to be, namely, a huge, momentum-building victory for Obama and the Democrats, and a call to violence for the radical right.

But my question is: What now? I expect that the media will come out with more reporting over the following weeks pointing out just how much health care reform is based on GOP ideas. If this happens, what will be the GOP response? Will Republicans just continue to deny the obvious, or will they be forced to pivot on this issue and embrace the reform? How can the Republicans embrace reform now after spending all that effort enraging their lunatic base?

As I mentioned on Wednesday, GOP Senator Chuck Grassley has already taken credit for some of the HCR law, and I expect we'll see more of this over the next few weeks. But the bottom line here is that the Republicans really backed themselves into a corner on this issue.

UPDATE: Here is what Obama said this morning on Today:

"[W]hen you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said, you know, this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican Governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts."

More on this here.

Lukewarm Condemnation From NRCC

In fact, caliing it "lukewarm" would be generous:

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) is one of the Democratic lawmakers who has been targeted after the health care vote -- and one Republican group suggests he has only himself to blame for the situation.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Andy Sere said that while his organization doesn't condone the actions of the person or people who cut a gas line at Perriello's brother's house (apparently under the impression that the home was the congressman's), Perriello is not the victim.

"Central and Southside Virginians are the ones who are going to have the bear the burden of increased taxes," Sere told The Roanoke Times. "What you're seeing is a frustration among his constituents who believe he's not listening to them." * * *

Sere later tried to claim he was he was only referring to marches, demonstrations and letters -- and not physical threats -- but that's total horseshit, of course.

Clearly, GOP leaders don't want to seriously condemn any of the folks who are issuing threats against Democrats because these people form the base of the Republican Party. Check out these results from a recent Harris poll:

* 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim

* 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"

* 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"

* Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

This poll goes a long way to explain why the Republicans have chosen to oppose everything Obama supports, even if the idea was originally a Republican one. I mean, how could a senator or congressman support anything Obama does in the face of these numbers? Such a person would have to go home and explain to half of his constituents why he is cooperating with that illegal-alien-Muslim-terrorizer in the White House.

Two-fifths of Republicans think that Obama is doing many things that Hitler did, and one quarter of them think Obama is the Anti-Christ. How could a Republican ever support Obama on any issue without pissing off these lunatics?

Senator Chris Dodd thinks that things might be loosening up a bit on this front:

"I think, frankly, there are a number of Republicans who went along with the strategy of 'just say no' who were never really happy with it, but if it worked they would go along," Dodd said. "They saw it fail. And now they've had enough of it. and they really want to be involved in crafting things."

I was thinking a similar thing the other day. The most essential part of the GOP's "Just Say 'No' To Obama" strategy was defeating Obama on health care reform; and now that such a goal cannot be reached, my thinking was that a lot of Republicans in Congress might decide that the time has come to do their jobs. But the aforementioned results from the Harris poll have caused me to do some rethinking on that.

By the way, I really like this.

Interesting Interview Of David Axelrod (With Update)

From HuffPo:

One of the president's closest advisers said on Tuesday that Republican opponents of health care reform let down their guard following Sen. Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, in the process allowing Democrats and the administration to make a final, successful push for the bill.

In an interview with the Huffington Post hours after the president signed health care reform into law, senior adviser David Axelrod pointed to that special election in late January as a pivotal point in the long path to passing legislation.

"Some of the steam went out of the opposition after that," Axelrod said. "I think that people felt like they had made a statement. Perhaps they felt like they had killed health care reform... They thought the fight was over. And that [the president] couldn't now succeed. I do believe that. And it is almost as if they had made the statement that they thought they had stopped the thing. And so it created a breathing space for us to regroup." * * *

I think Axelrod makes a good point, but he and the rest of the Obama Administration need to beware of falling into the same trap. If the Dems for one minute think that momentum is on their side on this and that they can sit on their hands with regard to Health Care Reform, they should think again. The GOP has promised to come after them with everything they've got, and I expect that will happen.

I know that the most recent Gallup poll showed 49 percent approval and 40 percent disapproval of the health care reform law, but all the polls before that showed that most people opposed the reform. The polls basically reversed themselves overnight, and that can easily happen again.

What the Democrats need to do now is launch a spoiling attack against the GOP. Obama should travel all over the country and speak on this issue (I heard he was in fact going to do that). The Democrats and their surrogates should launch blistering attack ads on all the Republicans who opposed this bill (which is ALL of them).

One ad should attack Republicans individually. It should simply lay out the reforms, and then close with "Call Representative So-and-So and ask him why he and the rest of the Republicans opposed a bill that actually reduced the deficit and extended Medicare solvency by at least nine years and provided health coverage to 32 million Americans who didn't have it before."

I have a feeling that a lot of Democrats think this new law will basically sell itself, but that won't happen if they let the GOP frame the debate during the run-up to the Mid-Terms.

UPDATE: This new Health Care Reform law is so full of GOP ideas that I have no doubt Republicans will soon be coming out and taking credit for most of it. Of course, this won't happen right away, because the current Republican plan is to oppose All Things Obama (even if it was a Republican idea to begin with -- e.g., the Deficit Reduction Panel) and, as everyone knows, the GOP is masterful at keeping its people in line and there is no way in hell that . . . .

Wait! ... What's this? Could it be true . . . ?

GOP Senator Chuck Grassley takes credit for health care reform! That didn't take long.

Any bets on who will be the next Republican domino to fall? I pick Rep. Peter King of New York.

Victory!

Danimal just called me to concede that I did in fact win my $10 bet with him -- although his call might have been premature given that the GOP can still pull all sorts of delaying tactics to prevent the final vote from happening before midnight --but it is clear now that Health Care Reform will pass the House.

This is a huge accomplishment, historically and politically. If the bill hadn't passed, Obama's presidency would have been crippled and the Democrats would have been absolutely screwed in the upcoming Mid-Term Elections. Now they can campaign from a position of strength. In fact, with regard to the Health Care Reform issue, the Democrats need to do three things to the GOP during the run-up to the Mid-Terms: (1) attack, (2) attack, and (3) attack more.

Even though these reforms really aren't all that different from the stuff that the Republicans were supporting during the Clinton-era health care debate, the GOP nonetheless decided that the best thing for them to do politically was to sit on the sidelines and instead do anything and everything they could to turn this Health Care debate into Obama's Waterloo. They need to pay for that decision, and the Democrats can make them pay if they do the following things:

** The Dems need to constantly point out that the reforms passed today are very moderate. In fact, the whole thing was a huge compromise. The so-called "public option" was actually a compromise on the single-payer deal, which is hilarious because the public option wasn't part of the bill that was just passed. When Obama signs this bill into law, it should be a very somber moment -- he should simply point out that these basic reforms needed to be passed decades ago, and he should say that he signs on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens who died because the American people did not have the political will to get this done sooner.

** The Dems need to constantly point out that the GOP didn't do squat on Health Care Reform when they were in control all those years, and as a result 45,000 Americans died each year who wouldn't have died had they had health coverage. The GOP loves to protect unborn fetuses, but they don't give two shits about folks after they are born and Obama and company need to point out this hypocrisy at every opportunity.

** The Democrats need to constantly ask the Republicans this question: Why in the hell did your party uniformly oppose a bill that actually reduced the deficit and extended Medicare solvency by at least nine years and provided health coverage to 32 million Americans who didn't have it before!? One of the GOP's talking points on this issue is that these reforms will increase the deficit, and Republicans continue to make this argument even though these reforms actually reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade, and $1.2 trillion in the second. The GOP will continue to bring up this fake issue; and every time Republicans do it, the Democrats should simply call them out as liars.

On that last point, Obama and the Dems need to rid themselves of their fear of calling Republicans "liars" on this (or any) issue. I hate it when Democrats use phrases like "well, that's not exactly true" or "Mr. So-and-So has his facts wrong." Lies such as "death panels" or "government takeover of health care" were able to gain traction because the Democrats' response to all that bullshittery was weak at best. That needs to change.

All you hear about these days is how badly the Democrats are going to lose this November. But that doesn't have to happen, especially if our economy starts creating jobs again over the next few months. But it will happen if the Democrats continue to act like a bunch of political weaklings.

Bad News For The GOP (With Updates)

The Congressional Budget Office just released its final numbers on the health care reform bill, and it is good news for the Democrats. Steve Benen sums it up:

[T]he final package costs $940 billion over 10 years. It reduces the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade, and $1.2 trillion in the second. The bill will bring coverage to 32 million Americans, while extending Medicare solvency by at least 9 years.

Democrats have begun calling the package the "biggest deficit reduction measure in 25 years," which happens to be true. It's also arguably the biggest cost control bill ever.

Also note, the final Democratic proposal lowers the deficit more than the previous versions. The Senate bill was projected to reduce the deficit by $118 billion in the first decade, and this one does even better. * * *

I have a $10 bet with Danimal that the House will pass the bill before the end of the day on Sunday, so this report gives me some hope that I might win that bet. Having a very active Dennis Kucinich on board doesn't hurt the Democrats' chances either:

A few hours after Rep. Dennis Kucinich switched his support to become a critical vote for the health care bill, he took to the House floor to ask wavering colleagues to join him. Astonished colleagues pointed to Kucinich (D-OH) darting from member to member on the House floor yesterday, saying privately they'd never seen him get so involved in whipping a vote.

It's not just progressives he's targeting to keep in the fold, it's everyone, a top Democratic aide told me. Members know that Kucinich - a staunch antiwar liberal long in favor of a single-payer system and often going out on a limb with his own agenda - is setting aside deep ideology to help get something passed. "It's a totally new dynamic. People are realizing he's doing it for history," the aide said. * * *

Even if this weekend's anticipated vote doesn't go the Democrats' way, the CBO report does give them a little cover. They can point out during the run-up to the 2010 mid-terms that the Republicans opposed a bill that actually reduced the deficit and extended Medicare solvency by at least nine years while providing health coverage to 32 million Americans who didn't have it before.

Of course, the Dems can more effectively use these arguments against the GOP if the bill passes. My hope here is that the House Democrats who are still on the fence will figure out that they are going to be attacked on health care reform no matter what happens with this bill, and that it would be better to defend themselves from a position of strength (i.e., defending a law that they passed without any GOP support) than from a position of weakness (i.e., defending a failed bill that they couldn't pass even though they controlled both branches of Congress and the White House).

UPDATE: How do we know the CBO numbers are bad for the GOP? Because the Republicans are attacking them.

UPDATE II: From First Read:

We’re told that the White House and House Dem leaders are fewer than five votes away from 216, after Dennis Kucinich’s no-to-yes switch yesterday and pro-life Dem Dale Kildee saying that he’s ok with the Senate bill’s abortion language. * * *

Quote Of The Week

"See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me."

Isaiah 49:16 (i.e., the Bible passage that Sarah Palin quotes to justify her use of notes scribbled on the palm of her hand).

The Bible doesn't refer to teleprompters, so I guess that's why Palin has no problem attacking Obama for using them.

This Is Idiotic

I can't believe this one:

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The president's advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States. * * *

The politics of this are pretty simple: the GOP is going to attack Obama on this issue anyway (even though they had no problem with Bush prosecuting terrorists in Federal Court), so if Obama backs down the other side can attack him (1) for initially proposing that Khalid Sheik Mohammed be tried in Federal Court, and (2) for being indecisive on the whole War On Terror deal by changing his mind on Federal prosecutions.

Show some backbone, Barack.

What Is It With These People?

From TPM:

It's no good for a family values Republican to get picked up on a DUI. But substantially worse to get picked up for a DUI after leaving a gay nightclub with an unidentified man in a state vehicle.

That's the sorry state that befell California state Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) early Wednesday.

In better days Ashburn, a fierce opponent of gay rights, was fighting marriage equality and organizing anti-gay marriage rallies as part of his "Traditional Family Values" campaign.

But he hit a bump in the road -- figuratively, not literally -- Wednesday at around 2 AM when CHP officers observed him weaving and driving erratically in downtown Sacramento. After a field sobriety test, officers determined that Ashburn, who reeked of alcohol and had bloodshot, watery eyes, was under he influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest. He was released from jail just before 4 AM.

Initial reports only noted the DWI arrest and Ashburn issued a contrite apology on Wednesday. But late this evening, the CBS affiliate in Sacramento reported that "sources" confirmed that Ashburn had left Faces, a gay nightclub in downtown Sacramento, just prior to his arrest. * * *

That Sound You Hear Is George Orwell Rolling Over In His Grave As His Head Explodes

Sarah Palin said this on Leno last night:

I studied journalism, my college degree there in communications. And now I am back there wanting to build some trust back in our media. I think the mainstream media is quite broken and I think there needs to be the fairness, the balance in there — that’s why I joined Fox. Fair and balanced, yes. You know because, Jay, those years a go that I studied journalism it was all about the who, what, when, where, and why, it was not so much the opinion interjected in hard news stories. … As long as there is not the opinion under the guise of hard news stories — I think there needs to be clear differentiation.

Quote Of The Week

Look, it would be okay for reporters and pundits to be obsessed with what legislative method is employed to pass health care reform if they boned up on the issue. Alternatively, it would be okay for them not to understand it at all if they deemed it an irrelevant issue. (Which, in my opinion, it is.) But obsessed and ignorant makes for a bad combination.

-- Jonathan Chait at The New Republic.

Chait is referring to how reporters and pundits are buying into the GOP bullshittery that health care reform is going to be passed via reconciliation. As Kevin Drum explained:

[T]he Democratic plan is not to pass health care reform via reconciliation. It never has been. The plan is to pass it via regular order (i.e., have the House approve the bill already passed by the Senate) and then amend it with a few modest modifications that are passed via reconciliation and therefore can't be filibustered in the Senate.

Once again, you gotta hand it to the GOP. Republicans in the Senate are currently on pace to break their own filibuster record:

In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress -- the 111th -- for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.

That should be the big political story, yet the GOP somehow got reporters and pundits to run with a story that has no basis in reality.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Republicans have horrible ideas, but they have political maneuvering down to a fine art.